Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting

At the advice of policy wonks Johnuniq, Bbb23, and DangerousPanda I am bringing this matter to ANI rather than to AN. The case, involving Skyring (goes by Pete) and HiLo48, is this.

On 4 November 2013 I closed a lengthy ANI discussion and logged an interaction ban between the two. The particulars of that discussion are on the record: it was painful, and there was considerable doubt about Skyring's editing and ways of interacting. At any rate, the ban was logged. Since then each has complained to me about the other: I warned Skyring once and then blocked him briefly, a month later I think; recently I warned HiLo but stopped short of blocking him.

But now disruption has risen again, with a thread started by Pete on Talk:Soccer in Australia. HiLo argues, in a nutshell, that Pete has followed him there, and with some reason. Pete has only one single edit in the article, a revert of HiLo (from August 2013, before the IBAN), against 40 by HiLo, going back to 2010. The talk page is similar: 24 edits for Pete, going back to August 2013, and 375 by HiLo.

So, the question is, is the section Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#About_time_we_talked_about_the_name_again, started by Pete on 1 February, to be taken as indicative of him following (hounding) HiLo to one of the latter's favorite haunts, and thus perhaps of baiting him? It should be noted that the section discusses the whole soccer/football naming controversy, in which HiLo has been outspoken and on the record. In other words, one could expect that this important matter would attract HiLo's attention, and an IBAN preventing him from participating in that thread takes one of the longstanding voices in that debate out of the equation.

Let it be noted, but I need to wrap this up, that NE Ent left Pete a note on his talk page that supports the notion that this was inappropriate on Pete's part (correct me if I'm wrong, Ent), and that Johnuniq and DangerousPanda subscribe to that idea too. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, Drmies. Just let me clarify there. My interest is not in the sport, so I'm not active on the article page. Rather, the question of the terminology is what arouses my interest, and that is confined to the talk page. In fact it is pretty much what the talk page is all about, and I urge editors to take a look for themselves. It is painful.

My contributions there have been ongoing for some time. August 2013, going by the page history and this diff. There may be earlier edits, but that one predates the IBAN. Further discussion on the RFC for name change, where I supported the current title. After doing a little research I find that "Soccer" is now deprecated amongst media and sports organisations, accordingly I now support a name change to reflect the changed reality.

This seems to be a majority position amongst editors, going by the !vote taken. There are some points raised in the discussion immediately preceding, where my position is made quite clear: we should set aside our own personal opinions and look for good sources. My feeling is that whatever I might have called the game fifty years ago as a schoolchild in Victoria, the name has changed, especially over the last few years,

Do we have any guidance on where to proceed? My understanding is that both participants to an IBAN are able to participate in !votes for RfCs and so on so long as there is no interaction. I think every editor involved is entitled to a voice in that sort of discussion, and if any editor were to lodge a !vote in the ongoing "Gauge Support" discussion I would not seek to have it removed on a spurious technicality. It is a matter of fairness and commonsense. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Pete's response here is effectively the same as it was on Drmies's talk page. I find it disingenuous at best. I think there are several of us in agreement that what Pete did was "wrong". The harder question is what's the remedy, and we may find significantly more disagreement there. Not being a policy wonk (no matter what Drmies says), my view is that Pete violated the WP:IBAN, either its spirit or by implication. If HiLo had responded directly, he would obviously have violated the ban, and I think Pete was goading him to do so. (BTW, I have no history with either editor that I'm aware of, or at least remember.) It reminds me of the I Love Lucy episode (everything does) in which Lucy bets with Ricky that he can't lose his temper for 24 hours and he bets that she can't not buy a new hat for the same period of time. During the next 24 hours, Lucy keeps doing things to try to make Ricky lose his temper. He comes close but always pulls back. I heartily recommend this episode for anyone interested in implied IBAN violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Skyring's contributions on Soccer in Australia are within the allowed activities of WP:IBAN. However, given their lack of prior interest in the subject, as documented by Drmies with the cool tool, the strong opinions at the ANI discussion which lead to ban, the vast size of both Australia and English Wikipedia, in which to engage in questions of terminology, the number of editors already having a robust discussion of the issue, I would say it's of minimal benefit to the Encyclopedia to focus their efforts there; given the potential for conflict between two editors who just don't get along I requested they strike their comments and disengage. NE Ent 00:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to take the trouble, they might review Special:Contributions/Skyring and see if there is a net benefit from Skyring/Pete's presence—I suspect the answer is no. At a minimum, I support an indefinite topic ban for Skyring regarding soccer/football and its naming controversy. At Drmies' archived talk, I noted (at 1 January 2014) that, checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that:
  • HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014. In the December edits, 19 mention "soccer" in the edit summary.
  • Skyring made 3 edits in January 2014, 3 edits in December 2013, and 5 edits in August 2013, and no other.

I have seen enough of Skyring's style to know that his recent interest in the topic of soccer is almost certainly gaming the system to irritate his opponent—HiLo48 always participates in a new outbreak of the soccer/football battle, but he cannot participate at the moment because the section was started by Skyring. Of course no one can prove that this is an intentional tactic by Skyring, however proof is not needed since all the community wants is drama reduction and productive editing, and anything that might be baiting should be stopped. The great soccer/football debate will continue without Skyring's participation. Skyring will use any opportunity as seen at User talk:Drmies#Sorry to bother you again where Skyring just happened to have noticed that his opponent has commented at User talk:Spinrad (which has a total of five edits in its history)—in the comment, HiLo48 has technically breached the IBAN, but it is such a harmless explanation that only someone going for blood would seize on it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies is well aware that we monitor each other's contributions. As for "going for blood", in the section linked, I requested a gentle reminder and that no further action be taken. I don't want to see anyone in trouble, but I do want the personal attacks to cease. That's why I supported the IBAN in the first place. --Pete (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that: HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014.

Well, It's interesting that you should bring those contributions up. For starters, you say "none in 2014", but I count 76. Perhaps I could ask an independent editor to check my figures?

Looking at some of those contributions makes for interesting reading, coming from someone who claims they don't make personal attacks. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo pointed out, on his talk page and here, that no evidence is given of personal attacks, and I think it's important to point out, for the new readers, that I see no personal attacks by HiLo on Pete since the IBAN. (That's the issue--not whether HiLo has been rude or whatever to other editors--that's unproven, you cannot make that case under your IBAN, and it's not of interest to this discussion--note after edit conflict and Pete's contribution.) It's not even really relevant here, nor is it relevant how exciting or important discussions on the Australian soccer nomenclature are. Indeed, I'm beginning to think that the lengthy commentary by Pete on this matter is intended to draw attention away from the actual matter at heart: whether we should see their interest in the Soccer in Australia article and its talk page as a kind of hounding/baiting. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed a number of personal attacks directed against me since the IBAN began. Specifically on HiLo's talk page. I've drawn your attention to them, Drmies, asking that they stop, but you are a busy person, and doubtless have other matters on your mind.

I've commented on the baiting already. Where are the diffs? --Pete (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The diffs are given: edit counts by both of you in the article and the talk page, and your starting that section on the naming issue: first sentence, fourth paragraph of my initial posting. You have left a "What's going on" section on my talk page, the answer to which (if there was a question) is this very ANI report. You also posted "Sorry to bother you again", where you pointed to this diff, and I responded, as did Johnuniq in this very thread. You pointed at a possible IBAN violation (archived, I believe, on my talk page) and I warned HiLo. I do have other matters on my mind, one of which is that I'm getting kind of tired of this thread and responding to your lawyerish comments. And no, I do not believe you have responded in any kind of substance to the baiting issue. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

My point was made before: There is nothing in an IBAN preventing either of us from participating in discussion. The key point is to avoid the other party. Editors do not "own" articles or talk pages, regardless of how many edits they make or who was first. In this case, both of us were active on the relevant talk page before the ban was applied and we have since confined ourselves to different threads. Call it lawyerish, if you must, but that's just a commonsense reading of the relevant policy: "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way."

So where, precisely, is the hounding? Can you - or anyone else - provide a diff that is one party baiting the other?

If it is your contention that HiLo48 "owns" the article and its talk page, then I find that very problematic indeed. So do you, apparently. --Pete (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not contend that, but I am becoming more and more convinced that you posted on that talk page, seeking to overturn consensus on a topic where you had earlier sought confrontation with HiLo (your one edit to the article), in order to pull them out and violate the IBAN--yes, to bait them. And you're doing the same thing here: you know that HiLo is itching to rebut, and it's a good thing they're keeping their cool. You know, in this battle between the two of you I used to think there was equal blame, more or less. I don't think that anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at that talk page, it is quite clear that there is no consensus to be overturned - it is one long argument. My posts there are aimed at finding and presenting reliable sources showing that the name of the sport has changed. As I noted earlier - did you even read it? - there is no point to baiting the other party in an IBAN and then running to AN/I claiming a breach. That sort of tactic is easily seen through and would boomerang if either party tried it. You raised this AN/I discussion, requiring me to come here to rebut the charges made against me. I have stated my case, I have been honest, I have pointed to the relevant policy and asked for evidence. And nothing concrete is forthcoming but irritation. Which I share.

This comes down to a simple point. If the other party "owns" the article and talk page, then say so, and I will refrain from posting there any more. If not, then I am perfectly within my rights to take part in discussion on a topic which attracts me through my interest in language and popular culture. The mere act of posting is not baiting. I didn't mention the other party in any way, I didn't respond, I didn't interact at all. Go me. Go both of us.

And finally, yes, I very much prefer that all parties keep their cool. That's what this whole thing is about. That's exactly what I want. HiLo48 deserves praise for keeping calm and biting his tongue. May he ever continue to do so, and may we all of us continue to be civil in our dealings with one another. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Am I allowed to comment here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think WP:BANEX says yes, and Pete already has. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. What personal attacks? That unsupported negative statement is the typical sort of nonsense that gets posted at AN/I without consequence. I have not communicated with Pete/Skyring since the ban began. I have made absolutely minimal comments about him. That disruptive statement alone is so unhelpful it should demand a serious consequence, quite apart from the other problem being discussed here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I may be someone who is regularly opposed to HiLo's way of dealing with things, but even when I'm on the opposite side, this is one of the clearest gaming of the system attempts that I've seen in a while - as Johnuniq notes, it is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional. Skyring has contributed a miniscule amount to any association football/soccer article, whereas HiLo is far more regularly involved. Skyring being topic banned from anything to do with association football/soccer would be entirely appropriate. And yes, HiLo, you can comment here, since this is an ANI discussion about the interaction ban. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48 has a perfect right to present his side of the story in his own words and he shall have no interference from me.

  To those whose mind is made up, there is no point arguing. Think what you will. For my part, I am perfectly within my rights under the limitations of an IBAN to participate in Wikipedia discussions on those topics which interest me, and while football does not, popular culture and language has been my fascination from university, and the question of what a particular sport might be called is an important and intriguing one. The name is changing within Australia and it affects not just the one article, but many others. If an Australian player moves to the European leagues during the offseason, does he play Soccer or Association Football and how do we describe him?

  It is not in my heart to goad or bait HiLo48 into breaking the ban and then pounce around and crow over it. Anyone who knows how Wikipedia works also knows exactly how that would play out here. It would be a pointless exercise and it would boomerang badly. If it happens, then it can be dealt with, but it also seems pointless to discuss something that hasn't happened, especially when other editors are projecting thoughts and motivations into my mind that do not, in fact, exist. "It is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional," one editor claims. Well, it's not. I know what's in my mind, and it is not that.

  I have looked carefully at the restrictions and exemptions of an IBAN and I see nothing there to prevent me from continuing my ongoing participation. Looking at the discussion page and archives for that topic, likewise. In fact it seems to me to be a good deal less restrictive than recent interpretations and if it is going to be enforced in a different manner to the words of the policy, then perhaps it is time to reword the policy.

  If anyone thinks that there is any baiting or goading going on, then let them put forward diffs. I'm prepared to stand by my statements. All I ask is that policy be followed, evidence presented, and that fairness prevail. For all parties. --Pete (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  Perfect! You've got a convincing air of innocence gently blended with the wikilawyer's prove it! However, this is Wikipedia where the purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to endlessly debate whether something looking like a turd really is a turd. Is there any reason to imagine that Skyring/Pete's continuing presence in soccer/football issues is required for the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  From my perspective the answer is no. I am quite familiar with the events leading up to this case. In the past I have been extremely critical of HiLo48, but more recently I have come around to seeing matters differently. To be brief, in my view if Skyring/Pete gets off with a soccer/football topic ban he will be getting off easy. Jusdafax 06:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of a little kid who stands just 3 inches beyond where a dog's chain end, and, when reminded they were told not to tease the animal, says but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle! Earlier in the thread [1] Skyring claims HiLo is monitoring their edits (they know that how?) and they "want the attacks to stop." These are violations of the ban. But the important thing isn't the letter of "the law" (WP:NOJUSTICE), but the spirit, and Skyring is clearly violating it. My first thought was along the lines of topic ban from Soccer in Australia, but I'm concerned that's just kicking the can down the road. Perhaps the interaction ban could be amended to include That means stay the heck away from HiLo48, cause the next time it looks like you're edging anywhere close to him we'll skip the three days of discussion and just jump to the point where we block you, for however long it takes you to get the hint. NE Ent 10:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll make a comment about process here. I'm looking at several editors using language related to their assessment of my motives and thoughts. The comment above is a good one "I'm reminded of a little kid..." Well, I'm not a little kid, I'm well into my fifties, and I'm not as naiïve as those assessments assume. Baiting the other party in an iban and then running to an admin or ANI with a complaint is not a winning strategy on Wikipedia, as I trust everyone here is aware. I certainly am, because I've now mentioned it three times.

I'm seeing guesses from editors here about my motivations and intentions that project "that little kid" onto me, and that's quite revealing. It's quite incorrect, because it's not in my mind to annoy or harass the other party, and I've asked for diffs to show the baiting. which have not been provided. Standing just beyond the angry dog's reach is a lovely image, but not really applicable here, where both parties are editors of many years experience and presumably able to control themselves. HiLo48, if I may mention him one more time in this thread, is not a barking dog and has in fact demonstrated considerable pride in his ability to NOT react. Those of you with experience will know that this is quite something, but some editors are treating him as if he were on the verge of snapping, and me as if I know this and am goading him that last little bit.

Neither of us are barking dogs or mischievous children. We are people of some maturity and we have both demonstrated restraint over the course of this iban. Sure, there have been some minor breaches, but at least on my part all I've ever sought has been a reminder of the rules rather than any sort of penalty.

So, instead of evidence - a deliberately provocative post, weasel wording, actual baiting or trolling or goading - I'm seeing statements based on emotional projection, revolving around little kids and barking dogs. These are actually quite insulting to both parties, and when I compare these imagined motivations against what is in my own mind, they are quite wrong.

Now, having said that, I can see where this is heading, and I'm obviously not going to change hearts and minds here and now, but I will flag my intention to appeal to whatever step is next. Presumably the Arbcom, and in that forum, we will be dealing more with procedure and evidence and less with emotion and gut feelings. There are some questions in my mind about the limits of interaction bans and "spirit of the law", mentioned above. That is intended - and worded - not to be pettifoggingly precise, but to minimise disruption, and I think it has worked very well in this case. Apart from presuming upon the good nature of Drmies with questions and minor complaints, and this current little dramafest, which in my opinion is quite unneccessary and irritating to all concerned apart from those habitual attendees here who cheerfully chuck in their five cents worth of psychiatric assessment. --Pete (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of my comments have been a bit over-excited, but the essential problem remains—there is an IBAN between two users, and one of those users is widely known as supporting a particular outcome in the soccer/football debate, and has over 300 edits to the talk page, starting in October 2009. By comparison, the other editor has had a very minor involvement, but would now like to take a role that happens to oppose the first user. The community is mostly concerned with minimizing disruption and maximizing benefit to the encyclopedia, and following that principle suggests that the best outcome would result from the second user avoiding soccer/football. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So. Where's the disruption that you want to minimise? Not trying to be snarky here, just curious if you can point to any at all. Apart from this unnecessary thread, of course. --Pete (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been following this thread and your previous interactions with HiLo48 for some time but have not felt the need to get involved. However, this post just leaves me speechless. In the vernacular the only appropriate response is to say "don't come the raw prawn here, mate". You are well aware of what you have been trying to do and have been called out for it. Pretending to be all innocent is just not going to cut it. I would suggest that admitting your error and giving sincere undertakings not to repeat them is your only hope of avoiding an enforced Wiki-holiday. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly well aware of what I am trying to do. I know what is in my own heart. And you are wrong. Simple as that. But I ask again. Where is the disruption? In your imagination, it seems. Can you point to anything that has actually occurred? Something outside whatever fantasy you are imagining? Seriously now. Where is the evidence?

That's why I mentioned process above. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and evidence. We check our facts. We don't speculate, imagine, fantasise and pretend. Apart from AN/I, it seems. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Would people please specify a preferred outcome because the advice offered above has not been accepted, and this section is getting too long. A couple of us have hinted that more than a topic ban may be helpful—it might be more realistic to apply an indefinite block until it is clear there will be no further exploratory incursions. However let's just examine whether Skyring/Pete should be indefinitely topic banned from all soccer/football topics and discussions, broadly construed. Is the following correct (not including the views of the two editors concerned):

• No recommendation yet: Bbb23, Drmies.
• Support topic ban: Johnuniq, Jusdafax, Lukeno94, NE Ent.

Please make any corrections or updates required, and I hope others join the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban and/or block. NE Ent 12:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Skyring from soccer/football, because I find NE Ent's analogy cogent: "but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle!"[2] The next time Skyring applies his wikilawyering and timewasting skills to this IBAN ("exploratory incursions"), I support a swift indef block. Bishonen | talk 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

Given that the discussion has progressed to this point, I boldly went and created a section for it. So to lay it out:-

1. Skyring, who signs as Pete, is hereby indefinitely topic banned from all articles relating to soccer/football. Attempts to skirt/wikilawyer around the topic ban will be met with escalating blocks.
2. Any future attempts to skirt the interaction ban, as viewed by the community, will be met with an indefinite block. The usual exceptions to IBAN's still apply but attempts to game those exceptions will also be met with an indefinite block

Does that about sum it up? Blackmane (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's strict but I think it's the only solution. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• As a general comment, it seems like the general understanding of IBan (outside of this case) is that 1) both editors can edit the same article, but not interact with each other. and 2) commenting in a thread started by the other is interaction 2a) commenting in any thread the other has commented in is interaction and 3) that includes RFCs or other "official" discussions. Would not just establishing that commenting on official proposals, without mentioning the other person or their argument is acceptable resolve the issue, and let HiLo comment on the RFC? Other ways of interpreting IBan seem to be subject to easy gaming - if you can predict which articles/discussions someone will like get their first and its locked out. Yes we can handle that with topic/community bans, but why not just drop the king of the hill game and make IBan deal with actual interaction? I suppose that does makes it a bit more subjective to enforce... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

IBAN's are notoriously difficult to deal with. Just last week there was a rather lengthy discussion about an IBAN that is in force and whether there has been violations and/or gaming of it (not going to name parties, but regulars at ANI will know who I mean). I added in the condition "as viewed by the community" for obvious reasons. What one editor sees as an IBAN violation may/will not appear so to the violator. This condition solidifies the burden on a community consensus that a violation has occurred. Against a community consensus that the IBAN has been violated there is no wriggle room to wikilawyer around. Blackmane (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and warning - lets do this quickly and move on. Distasteful, but probably for the best. Jusdafax 01:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support For clarity, I had better sign here although I have supported above. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Skyring's edits here and here indicate that they just don't get it. Consequently I support a block, but if consensus is for a topic ban and warning I will support that, but I rather think that if we choose to go down that route we'll just be back here once again pretty soon, since Skyring has shown that they are either unable or unwilling to understand that it is not just the letter of the law that matters but its spirit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Emphasize support of topic ban - Best case scenario: Skyring backs off HiLo altogether, HiLo is therefore able to relax a bit in discussions, Wikipedia gets improved. Worst case scenario: Skyring violates the topic ban or continues to try and skirt around the interaction ban, and gets an indefinite block. Either way, the disruption should pretty much end here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• What disruption are you talking about? Apart from this ANI thread, which I didn't start. Seriously now, if nobody can provide diffs or evidence of disruption, then this thing is going to be appealed to a more reliable forum. I posted on a talk page, continuing my pre-iban participation, and I did it without the intention of baiting or trolling. Feel free to compare the tone of discussion in that thread with others on the page. Be fair, please. --Pete (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

*comment I saw this coming from a mile away and the position that this would put User:Skyring|Pete in. However, I don't see any interruption of an IBAN going on here, neither Pete or the parties involved parties are interacting with each other directly. Where is the IBAN actually being broken here? What is actually going on? I don't see a "quick and dirty" fix as resolving anything in this case. No disruptive behaviour has resulted from either of the two open discussions and they have their own direction flow, in fact they are two completely different discussions. I wont bring the other user into this discussion because it's not about them, I just don't see what Pete is doing wrong here by having an open discussion thread. If I've missed anything in particular in the difs for this please enlighten me where this is the case. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• If you're not seeing the violation, then either you've not read the thread carefully enough, or you're just not looking properly. HiLo is well known to be a regular contributor to Australian soccer/association football articles, whereas Skyring is well known not to be. Beyond that, HiLo is actively discussing (in multiple places) the possibility of various name changes involving the articles. However, the real nail in the coffin is that HiLo supports things remaining at soccer (not that I'm saying he actively wants to move it, just that he is questioning various changes of the term); Skyring is very deliberately setting himself up in entirely the opposite position, by opening a thread that suggests that a move to "association football" is enacted, knowing full well that HiLo is prevented from posting there by the terms of the IBAN. This is a blatant violation of the spirit of the ban, as well as a deliberate attempt at gaming the system. Skyring knows it full well, and you can see the smug undertones in some of his posts as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Smug undertones"? I have to laugh at some of the things being said here. Dead wrong, Lukeno94. Rattling chains is not what I'm about. That's mean, juvenile fun, and it's rather disappointing that so many are projecting their fantasy onto me. "Smug"? Geez. Spit on me a bit more, will ya? --Pete (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Meh - as an Australian editor I've had positive interactions with both (my little exchange with Pete during the original IBAN discussion probably not being among them). Like then, Pete seems determined to dig himself into a hole and not see what everyone else is seeing. If it was unintentional, starting a football discussion while under an IBAN with one of Australian-football-editing's most vocal participants is pretty dumb. If intentional, it's deliberately baiting and antagonistic, but I don't think that's what Pete is about. The simple course of action would be for Pete to accept it was pretty dumb and commit to editing in completely different areas. If he can do that then further action shouldn't be necessary. I'd only support action if he can't or won't - I don't think further action is justified at this stage. Stalwart111 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read the original IBAN thread when I inadvertently breached it myself... I could not have expected to have been across that one, particularly when I spent a long spell out with not editing here. No offense to Pete, he seems pretty reasonable. HiLo on the other hand seems less so reasonable... BUT, Pete... SERIOUSLY man... Sometimes it seems you like to dig yourself a good hole. I have my issues with HiLo... But I also know exactly when to shut up and do what the administrators tell me to do.

Inadvertent or not I see both sides of this issue:

1) HiLo has A LOT of cheerleaders for the position he takes up and I could see them deliberately bringing issues to AN/I just to rattle those that oppose his position

on the other hand

2) Either deliberately, or not so opening up a discussion topic in an area where HiLo likes to patrol was more than a little silly... I saw what was going on as soon as the thread was opened. I just have a little faith that Pete didn't do this deliberately. Just my two cents worth...

I don't think Pete deserves a complete topic ban, but I think he should be more wary of inadvertently opening up discussions that he knows full well HiLo cannot contribute to. I'd also loath to see the position put forward here either by interpretation or otherwise that administrators are giving sway to one side of this polemic debate or another... There is already enough accusations flying around and we should all have a little more respect, particularly for admins, which HiLo in particular has at times been in open descent of. I think the current IBAN is enough with a warning that doing something like this again WILL result in a topic ban. I would not like to see a potential voice, one way or another on this matter removed completely and could see how topic banning Pete could be interpreted as giving sway to one particular side of the Soccer in Australia debate. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm grumpy because I don't like being railroaded, but I fully appreciate about digging myself an ever-deeper hole. Story of my life. Stalwart, you've come closer than anyone else here to saying something that resonates with me. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In your defence Pete, the last time I was dragged up here before AN/I similiar attempts at character assassination were tried on me with incorrect difs which resulted in HiLo48 running away from a boomerang. You should know as well as I do the types of things that go on with HiLo48 and his supporters and you should by now know better to walk into a situation where you can have your pants pulled down like this... Unfortunately, it's just a waiting game to see how the administrators here interpret this one. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If I may offer some advice in my turn? I'd appreciate it if we kept the other party out of this as much as possible. It's my actions under the telescope here, not anyone else's unless they contributed in some way. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A good idea, both in the context of this discussion and in your wider approach to the IBAN and editing in general (which, for each of you, really shouldn't be defined by the IBAN anyway). HiLo has a long history in particular topic areas and you have a long history in other topic areas. The areas where you naturally overlap seem few and far between. I'm all for expanding your horizons but as long as you can each expand them to areas the other has little interest in, you should be fine. In this instance you stumbled across one, probably should have left it alone but didn't. As I said before: meh. Dumb, not intentionally disruptive. Stalwart111 05:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, dumb but not intentional, or at least I don't believe so, I believe Pete seems more reasonable than to throw stones at barking dogs --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as I think the proposal I'm offering below (in the same edit as this comment) probably works better. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal

I propose that the existing IBAN is modified as follows: The interaction ban currently in force between Skyring (talk · contribs) and HiLo48 (talk · contribs) is modified to exclude all articles related to association football, broadly construed. This exception also applies to all deletion-discussions related to such articles. This modification would allow Skyring to edit articles that HiLo48 have been editing without hindering HiLo48's ability to edit those articles. It's the least restrictive modification I can think of. (P.S. My proposal basically allows Skyring and HiLo48 to interact on articles related to association football (= soccer) as if the IBAN wasn't in place, and exceptions would apply to XfD/DR as those are not exactly on article/article talk namespace.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• No An IBAN was enacted to avoid pointless drama. What is the point of bending over backwards to provide a mechanism so the two users can snarl at each other in a topic where the issue will not be resolved for a another few years (I gather that "soccer" is slowly being replaced with "football" in some places in Australia, or some would like that—don't know which, and when/if that happens, the articles here will be renamed). A comment above includes "HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009...", and that shows that Skyring's interest is recent and minor, and need not be accommodated. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I proposed this because we cannot assume (and probably shouldn't assume) that Skyring is doing it on purpose, on the basis of WP:AGF. Besides, if we take Skyring's initial response to the original request, we can safely assume that it probably would not re-introduce mess, if Skyring indeed only has passing interest. I do not see the harm of doing this. (Besides, remember, just as consensus can change, so can people's interests. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Categorically no - WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and given that Skyring and HiLo have plenty of history, assuming good faith is categorically not appropriate here, in the face of other evidence. This alteration is essentially saying to Skyring that he can start doing this at every article HiLo has ever edited, and can essentially render the IBAN moot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolution please?

It's almost a week. Things have not improved. Can I ask for some sort of resolution please? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My summation of the restrictions gathered a small amount of traction but I don't think any admin could really call it a clear consensus. I'd say that the only clear point is that there will be a final warning with regards to the IBAN. As for the topic ban proposal, I think there needs to be a much clearer consensus for support/opposing it. Blackmane (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think any closing admin might be swayed by that "Things have not improved" comment. But, apart from this thread, I've done little else on Wikipedia this past week.[3] My attention has been on family matters. So what sort of improvement is the community looking for here? --Pete (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think at this stage any topic ban could be seen as a clear breach in policy that AN/I is not used to resolve outcomes on RFCs. I also believe that consensus can and does change often enough, and furthermore based on previous discussions here a lot of the discussion going on at talk:Soccer in Australia has not crossed any particular line YET. Pete's infractions here by the standards of what has led up to this are relatively trivial in nature and I don't believe they were deliberate. A final warning not to do anything that could be construed as requiring interaction with HiLo48 is appropriate here... That means staying away from talk page discussions where HiLo48 is known to be present except for the purposes of voting. Pete should be allowed at this stage to edit any page that he wishes, so long as that doesn't at the same time involve interaction with HiLo48.

The long and the short of it is that Pete should stay as far away from HiLo48 as is practical, and vice versa... The simple message for most of us including Pete is that nothing good will come of these interactions which is why I have also self imposed my own restrictions here. It's clear we all feel strongly one way or another about all of this, but the long and the short of it is that nobody on that page or elsewhere in these or similar discussions is going to come to a common accord through regular discussions when they are dealing with views that are of two polar extremes. --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any RfC. And we don't vote on Wikipedia.

Can an Administrator PLEASE finalise this? It's over a week now since it got here. The existence of this discussion has led to more nonsense being posted about me and the page in question above, and to Pete/Skyring starting a farewell thread at Talk:Soccer in Australia, attracting even more nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Won't someone please think of me... HiLo you need to read the boy who cried wolf, poor you, poor, poor HiLo. You never stop to think you bring the nonsense on yourself... There is a vote going on actually at the moment about where we should go about this in a less drama filled manner and things such as this are exactly what I was talking about. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't like HiLo any more than you do, but that post was bang out of line, and extremely unhelpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gentlefolk. Please. I have the luxury of being able to say that this thread is about me. I have no control over it, nor would I wish anyone to feel they are unable to speak, but it is not helpful to attack others in this particular discussion.

Just me, apparently. :) --Pete (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Orestes, thank you for proving my point. I hope that when some helpful administrator finally notices this thread, they decide to also do something about you. Please go away. You are not helping anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion may sound funny…

Maybe it's out of line for me to propose that we all just follow the wikipolicy as laid down: Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. Apart from the exceptions laid down in policy, one of which is dispute resolution in appropriate forums (such as AN/I).

Apparently I need do nothing at all to evoke complaints with bold fonts demanding urgent action, as we see above, which came three full days after my last contribution to the talk page of the article in question. The timestamps tell the story.

So, instead of guessing the states of minds of two different individuals, why not simply apply the iban as per policy and if one side or the other does something that is clearly disruptive or a clear breach of the ban, then we don't need to argue over whether an editor owns a particular article or discussion or RfC or whatever, the evidence will be right there as a diff.

I'm a big boy now, well into my seventh decade, and I'm prepared to own up to my sins, such as they are.

I don't think a topic ban or series of topic bans is needed to prevent either of us from editing the same pages or discussions, so long as we avoid each other. That's the purpose of an iban. And if we want to !vote on a question which interests us both, such as this one, from which HiLo48 may have felt excluded, then we should be able to do so. That is only fair.

After all, our longstanding areas of interest overlap in the field of Australian politics, and if we attempt to sort out who came first to a thread and who had more contributions, then there are going to be some right tangles to unravel!

I don't mind editors holding contrary views. I think it is good for the Wikipedia to have different points of view and different opinions. We seem to have been able to write good articles on controversial topics - such as this one - where strongly-held editorial opinions differ. So long as we editors are civil to each other, follow wikipolicy, and AGF, all goes well.

Why not do the same in this case? Just, you know, follow policy. No action required but both parties warned that itchy eyes are upon them and clear transgressions will be sternly and swiftly acted upon.--Pete (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a complaint about User:Ret.Prof.

He repeats ad nauseam that same information about the Gospel of Matthew having originally been written in Hebrew, which multiple editors repeatedly told him it is WP:FRINGE.

Misunderstanding of basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines: at [4] does not understand that primary sources cannot be used to establish facts for Wikipedia, since it means indulging in original research, and he said that even after I explained him this official Wikipedia policy.

A case of WP:COMPETENCE: his ability to find, evaluate and render the viewpoints of reliable sources make me think that he does not have great scholarly abilities. I do not want to be offensive, but this is my sincere impression when confronted with his edits. There are some things which scholars consider as poor academic performance and one of them is misquoting the viewpoints of other scholars. If one consequently fails to render the viewpoints of the sources he is quoting, it smells either like poor academic performance or as academic fraud (like in trying to game other editors, who are required to assume good faith in citing sources). Proof: at [5] he misrepresents several sources, which specifically affirm the following information which severely undermines his own case:

Hence the quite confused tradition that it was originally written in Aramaic or even in Hebrew.

— Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, 2010, p. 89

http://books.google.de/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA88&focus=viewport&dq=it+is+genuinely+true+that+the+apostle+Matthew+compiled

If this interpretation of Papias is correct, there are several historical problems. First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (see Chapter 15, "The Synoptic Problem," in this volume). This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek versions of Mark and Greek Q as sources. Third, the gospel contains sayings and sayings collections, but is itself not a collection of sayings such as Proverbs or The Gospel of Thomas. In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament.

— Dennis C. Duling, p. 302 in David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, 2010

See http://books.google.de/books?id=ygcgn8h-jo4C&pg=PA302&lpg=PA301&focus=viewport&dq=%22Matthew+comes+from+Papias%22+Eusebius+trustworthy

In any event, Papias does not seem to provide us with the kind of information we can place a lot of confidence in. I should point out, in this connection, that scholars have almost uniformly rejected just about everything else that Papias is recorded to have said in the surviving references to his work.

...

If scholars are inclined to discount what Papias says in virtually every other instance, why is it that they sometimes appeal to his witness in order to show that we have an early tradition that links Matthew to one of our Gospels, and Mark to another? Why do these scholars accept some of what Papias said but not all of what he said? I suspect it is because they want to have support for their own points of view (Matthew really wrote Matthew) and have decided to trust Papias when he confirms their views, and not trust him when he does not.

The result of this quick examination of Papias is, I think, that he passes on stories that he has heard, and he attributes them to people who knew other people who said so. But when he can be checked, he appears to be wrong. Can he be trusted in the places that he cannot be checked? If you have a friend who is consistently wrong when he gives directions to places you are familiar with, do you trust him when he gives directions for someplace you’ve never been?

Papias is not recorded as having said anything about either Luke or John. I’m not sure why. But the bottom line is this: we do not have any solid reference to the authors of our four Gospels in which we can trust (for example, that the author is actually referring to our Matthew and our Mark) until closer to the end of the second century—nearly a full hundred years after these books had been anonymously placed in circulation.

— Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 107-110

He could have himself found out that these sources undermine his own case if he bothered to read more than one page shown by Google Books.

I wrote on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Gospel of Matthew:

As far as Ehrman's book is concerned, the quote starts with "Many conservative Christian scholars use this statement to prove that what Papias says is historically accurate (especially about Mark and Matthew), but that is going beyond what the evidence gives us." So, Ehrman does not claim that Papias would be accurate in his reports, except for reporting the fact that he knew people who knew the apostles or their companions. As shown from another source, Ehrman believes that almost everything else Papias told is inaccurate and there is no indication that Ehrman has changed his mind about Papias's reliability. So, you cannot make Ehrman say that what Papias reports about a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew would be a reliable report. What Ehrman stressed is that Papias is not a reliable source for the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and it could be even be inferred that Ehrman affirms that Papias is historically inaccurate (with the exception of knowing those people). Just read the quote above ignoring the parenthesis and you will see what I mean. So, using Ehrman to establish the historical reliability of Papias's report fails verification, it is using partial quotations to justify an idea that Ehrman rejects. So, I was at least right about misrepresenting Ehrman's view. That's why I said that I cannot assume a fair rendering of the viewpoints of those sources, either you have failed to understand Ehrman's point or you have willfully misrepresented it. At least you could concede that you have misread what Ehrman has to say.

— User:Tgeorgescu

The above allegations are simply false. Yes I am an old guy who sometimes gets confused but if you read my sources in their context you will see my references are solid. If I do make a mistake, I promptly apologize and fix the mistake. I enjoy scholarly debate and enjoy it when I "learn" something new. My edit history will support me. I am not perfect but neither do I fit the caricature presented above! - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with:

It is important to note that these sources are NOT saying that "Matthew's collection sayings in a Hebrew dialect" and the Gospel of Matthew are the same work. Indeed there is clear evidence that "Matthew's Hebrew Gospel" was NOT translated into what we call the Gospel of Matthew.

— Ret.Prof

I have a problem with:

Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.

— Ret.Prof

Namely, you did not say who disagrees and where. And, please, no sources older than 50 years.

I also have a problem with User_talk:Davidbena#Reliable Sources (there are sources from when my grandmother was a child or even before she was born). Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And I find it disturbing that after more than five years of editing you still don't acknowledge the meaning of {{religious text primary}}. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

E.g., you still seem to think that Jerome and Eusebius wrote reliable sources, which could be used by Wikipedia in order to establish historical facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Coming back to your sources, their authors either say that Papias was mostly unreliable (as Ehrman said) or that Papias didn't speak of what we now call the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, his testimony about the Gospel of Matthew is either unreliable or inapplicable (irrelevant). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Some other users have already suggested a topic ban for this user, see Talk:Gospel of Matthew#Solicit a topic ban?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The problem has been going on since 2010 on multiple related articles and is intractable. There are chronic issues with misunderstanding (or misuse) of sources and behavioral problems as well. I would like to ask for the guidance of the community as to whether this complex dispute belongs in arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who has had nothing to do with that controversy, after reading the above, I would say yes, it sure sounds like a good candidate for arbitrating. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that arbitration is the way to go. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"As an uninvolved editor who has had nothing to do with that controversy," - other than that two threads about use of WP:FRINGE sources and WP:UNDUE content in Bible topics are happening on the same ANI page at the same time. One editor accuses the unanimity of New Testament textual scholars of German anti-Hebrew bias, another editor accuses the unanimity of Hebrew Bible palaeo-botanists of anti-cannabis bias. But these are exactly the issues WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are meant to cover. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Complaints about the FTN crowd pulling allegations of FRINGE out of their chutzpah to stigmatize entire bookshelves they don't like and "win" centuries-old debates the easy way has become a regularly recurring pattern, how many more instances will it take before FTN itself gets the scrutinizing case study it deserves? (especially in religion topics where FRINGE = a barely disguised euphemism for HERESY... For the first years of its existence, I remember when FTN would steer clear of asserting who the fringe and non-fringe was in religious debates, but lately it has been acquiring a new role for itself as the Arbiter of All Truth (TM)) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed century-old theological debates about some issues and we cannot claim that mainstream history would require that theologians revise their doctrines (while historical evidence may be important for apologetics, theology does not require historical evidence; all history books in the world cannot prove or disprove that Jesus is God, since that isn't a historical fact). But this does not imply that mainstream historians did not settle those issues as far as the secular academia cares. I don't deny that there are fundamentalist faculties who teach that "Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew", but for everyone else than fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals the debate has been definitively settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's been "settled" with perfect "unanimity", because all those saying different aren't even allowed at the table - such is the nature of achieving "unanimity" these days. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

People who hold that historical criticism was birthed in hell and continues to be a Satanic plot are generally not allowed at the discussion table establishing the consensus in historical criticism. As User:Ian.thomson said, "If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as orthodoxy on all Biblical controversies hereafter being a matter to be ascertained only by "scientists" - so, exactly how many of the competing hypotheses have got past the experimentation phase in this case? Are we using real "scientific method" to determine which scholars are correct / incorrect, or just the same ol' same ol' "appeal to authority"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if this view isn't unanimous, history is regarded as a science. Affirming biblical inerrancy as historical scholarship is beyond ludicrous. The mass of evidence that the Bible has errors (from minor copying mistakes to big theological contradictions) is simply too vast for biblical inerrancy to be considered true by mainstream scholars. Besides, scientists/scholars don't decide upon theological orthodoxy, since theological orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. So I do not say that Biblical inerrancy would be a problem theologically, I just say that history does not work that way. Wikipedia does not employ the scientific method, it is all the way for proper appeals to authority (i.e. reliable sources policy). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"history is regarded as science." Really? Funny, what I learned in school was that there are differing views of history. That different countries have differing views of history. That different scientists in the different countries are paid by their governments to research different hypotheses. And I learned that true "science" mainly applies to things where the "scientific method" is of any use to establish conclusions, although it is true that "science" in some eastern European countries has more taken the route of "appeal to authority" on other matters as well. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a red herring, I did not deny above that there are other views of history. East European scholarship is a red herring, too. Nothing of what you replied immediately above is germane to Ret.Prof's behavior. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to the POV Railroad

The "Anti-Fringe" POV Railroad is made up of two admins, six user accounts and an undetermined number of alternate accounts. (See WP:POV Railroad) It formed about 10 years ago and their stated purpose is to remove “fringe” (ie anything Hebrew or Jewish from Christianity). The most up to date reliable sources do not support their position. Nor does their definition of "fringe" line up with that of Wikipedia. They are in serious violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. See also Arbitration

Issue
I raised a concern that the following editas it was not properly sourced and explained edits at Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. I referred them to the first 15 pages of Throckmorton's the Gospel Parallels (All editions from 1957 to present) which give an excellent overview along the following sources.

• William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602
• Rochus Zuurmond, Novum Testamentum Aethiopice: The Synoptic Gospels, Franz Steiner Pub., 1989. p 31
• Sabine Baring Gould, "The lost and hostile gospels" 1874, Oxford University, Digitized 2006. p 122

I offered to provide further references if required. This would be no problem as every Biblical scholar is aware of the attestations to the early MSS (ie Matthew "wrote his Gospel in Hebrew in Palestine"). NOTE I did not revert the unsourced edit for I have voluntarily stepped back from editing this article last year because of the edit warring. This request on the talk page for a reliable source has given rise to the allegations that I am a time waster who is an incompetent editor who pushes fringe views. However there is much more to this 10 year old conflict than meets the eye.

Abuse of this noticeboard

• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard for a POV Railroad to act as 1)Accuser, 2)Judge & 3) Executioner
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it for the intimidation of other editors.
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use cherry pick edits from a good faith use's history and take these edits out of context in order to deceive or trick others into thinking he is a problem user.
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it as a tool for POV pushing See User:Davidbena, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb etc
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use cherry pick edits from a good faith use's ancient history in order to deceive or trick others into thinking he is a problem user. Generally speaking accusations should be restricted to edits within the last twelve months.
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it to facilitate false personal attacks against fellow editors.
• Finally when an admin warns an editor about some behavior and the editor complies, it is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to then use it as a basis for a ban.

WP:CBAN reads, "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute."

Arbitration
Because the POV Railroad has abused this notice board in the past I request that the conflict be taken to arbitration and the ban against User:CheeseDreams, User:-Ril-, User:Cheese -dreams and User:John Carter be extended to include all remaining User Accounts from the Anti-Hebrew POV Railroad. I also request that present bans be strictly enforced.

Re vague allegations against me

During my break I asked a number of Bureaucrats and Administers to review my edit history to see if I had done anything to warrant being banned from Wikipedia. None of them could find any edits to justify the allegations of rudeness etc brought against me over the past year. Michael Q Schmidt looked into the situation and his response was “Your only "sin" has been to be calm and reasonable in the face of negativity." And “your edits based upon existing policy and guidelines are sound. Your stepping back from areas of drama is to be applauded.” User:Liz went so far as to describe me as a "mild-mannered user". However the POV railroad has become so very powerful that being "innocent of any wrongdoing" does not make much difference. Many editors have let themselves be intimidated! (see my talk page) I will give the last word to User:llywrch who best summed up the situation:. "There are gangs of editors who protect themselves & their friends, & I don't know what can be done about them. I wish these groups didn't exist, but they do & there is little interest in controlling them." - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Blackwell source on natural theology has been evaluated at Talk:Gospel of Matthew#Clarification re Early Attestations. Otherwise, there is nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Judaizing about the sources used by the editors who challenge your views. The scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, and the contrary view does not even qualify for a minority view. The users who oppose such fringe view don't do that for ideological reasons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Again that is not true. I never got a source to support your edit that the attestations did not exist! Also, the most basic right of every editor is to be able to a request a source to back up an edit. To respond to such a request with a T-Ban is soooooo wrong! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What isn't true? The early church writers got their information from Papias, and as you have yourself admitted, most reliable sources tell that Papias does not speak of our Gospel of Matthew, besides Ehrman tells that Papias is unreliable except for the statement that he knew people who knew people associated with the apostles. You should at least quote some sources saying that Matthew did write the Gospel of Matthew, I guess there are fundamentalists who make such claims. I do not say that such sources would be mainstream, but at least you would make clear where you got your information from. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It is easy to claim that a certain view is "fringe" when it does not agree with one's own hypothesis. My suggestion in this particular contentious issue and which might give the editors involved a greater propensity to be honest and impartial in their reporting, is for User:Tgeorgescu and User:Ret.Prof to go before one of the Administrator heads (bureaucrats) with their respective arguments outlined on paper using reliable secondary sources and showing why the Gospel of Matthew was or wasn't first penned in the Hebrew or Aramaic tongue. Clearly, the man observing these scholarly arguments will come to the conclusion that neither view should be considered a "fringe view," but each view has its own merits on which to stand, based on solid arguments. The end result of which being that Wikipedia will then be left with no other choice but to take a neutral stand in this particular issue, in accordance with its own policy WP:NPOV, rather than mislead its readership into thinking that there is some consensus amongst scholars as to the original work of Matthew. Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I believe my references are strong and will stand the test of scholarly scrutiny. (See below) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

(Note: I refactored the multitude of level-3 headings in Ret.Prof's response above, because they made it difficult to tell that they were all part of a single comment. BMK (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC))

No problem. You just made an old guy run and get his glasses. LOL Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I am very concerned that User:Ret.Prof wants topics bans to be "extended to include all remaining User Accounts from the Anti-Hebrew POV Railroad" and mentions "two admins, six user accounts and an undetermined number of alternate accounts" without actually naming these users. These accusations should be properly documented, and the users in question named and notified of this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A good point. That is why I believe this case should be moved to arbitration. A lot of work and care is needed with serious accusations. One mistake and I could be banned as an incompetent time waster who is "Judaizing" the faith. I think we both know that this is not simply about my request for references to back up an unsourced edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me add one thing that is very important. I am mainly concerned about Wikipedia's accuracy and I apologize if such a concern inadvertently offended others... as offending or conflict was never my intention. My intention was only to ensure accuracy and better the reputation of Wikipedia. Also editors now working in groups or as some call them gangs can grow to be a real problem for Wikipedia. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

About that unsourced edit: it is common knowledge for everyone who has read anything recent in historical scholarship about the Gospel of Matthew. Besides at the WP:FTN discussion which I have previously mentioned here I had offered a list of sources which support that viewpoint. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• If RFAR is going to be filed, then this thread needs to be closed as it won't get anything done. (But I don't want to do that without further input.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any WP:RFAR - Ret.Prof wants "arbitration" but that is asking a lot/too much of the half dozen exhausted editors who have been reverting these additions and fork article creations at roughly six-month intervals since 2010. A particular problem with a WP:RFAR for other editors is the enormous number of bytes - often reposts of same material can be seen today - which Ret.Prof posts. WP:RFC/U might be more appropriate, but all that is really needed is a simple small targeted topic ban - simply please stop adding lost Hebrew Matthew theories to New Testament articles. WP:FRINGE theories can still be added in pages on any notable individual author BLPs/churches which advocate the theory but is WP:UNDUE for major articles on the New Testament which need to be objective and represent the consensus of academic scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, you can surely advise ArbCom of your opinion, but whether they start a RFAR or not (once someone actually submits a request) is not something that can be voted down by the peanut gallery. I think the Igniocrates(sp?) vs. John Carter ArbCom was on narrow behavioral issues. Most areas of Wikipedia suffer from having fewer editors than some years bacj; at least that's my subjective impression. That's probably a good argument (in the opposite direction, i.e.) for not letting POV pushers own any area because one or two of them seem to have a much greater impact now than they had before. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Someone not using his real name then I am mistaken, I thought there was a point at the request for arbitration where others could voice an opinion against arbitration as too much hassle. Is there no way to prevent repeat insertion of a WP:FRINGE (see definition) view into articles without the drama of "arbitration"? Isn't WP:FRINGE sufficient to stop these edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure you want binding arbitration? The collateral damage is often serious. What other dispute resolution methods have the various editors attempted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As said, there was a WP:FTN discussion about inserting fringe views. And editors tried to convince him (through using talk pages) to desist from inserting fringe views. The new research he means is mostly Dunn. While Dunn is not fringe, he does not represent the majority view either. And I doubt that Dunn goes so far as to say that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Other sources were simply misquoted to defend a view that the authors are known to have rejected it previously and no proof has been offered that they changed their mind. Also, quotations used by him were too selective and just quoting stuff at distance of some paragraphs or pages shows that those authors don't say what they are purported to say, therefore his synthesis fails verification. It's like people misquote Obama trying to show that he is a Socialist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This paragraph is typical of the problem. Although it is all over the place, (See WP:POV Railroad) it makes me sound really, really bad!

• I do not believe Obama is a Socialist for the 401(k) of the average person is doing well. I am a Christian but I am not a "Waco bird"! See the box on the top of my talk page.
• The statement (further above) about primary sources is also wrong and is not supported by my edit history. WP:SOURCES states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." Also, it has been my policy to back up a primary source with a secondary source.
• The statement above that Dunn "does not represent the majority view" is also wrong. Indeed it can be fairly said that Dunn is one of the foremost scholars in the world today.

And so on, and so, and so on. Trying to answer all the allegations leaves one chasing ones tail and looking guilty of being an incompetent time wasting editor who pushes fringe views and therefore should be banned. (See WP:POV Railroad for more information.) The only fair way to deal with this problem this problem is at arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to your use of sources in order to show that Papias would be quite reliable (especially in respect to the Gospel of Matthew or whatever gospel he was referring to). Ehrman said that many scholars do not hold Papias to be very reliable. So, you were misquoting sources in order to boost Papias's reliability. Besides, judgment in respect to the relevance of what Eusebius and Jerome prove should be left to contemporary mainstream historians. You cannot cite some 1500 years old texts and expect them to pass for contemporary scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't think James Dunn has ever supported the idea of a Hebrew/Aramaic original behind Matthew - at least I can't find any such on making a quick search. When RetProf refers to Dunn it's in reference to Dunn's ideas on the oral tradition. RetProf's talk about "new research" sometimes means Dunn's work on oral tradition, but in this case he's talking about superscriptions to ancient mss of the Gospel of Matthew that say in essence that the Apostle Matthew wrote it. The superscriptions are real enough, but there's nothing "new" about scholarly knowledge of them. What RetProf is doing is ignoring the existing consensus, which is that the superscriptions aren't reliable. Note that what he calls "new scholarship" includes works from 1801!" PiCo (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dunn definitely does not say that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, he says explicitly that it was written in Greek (he even goes further, saying that Matthew only used Greek sources!), this is from his most recent book in 2013, strengthening his assertions from 2011 JP&G: "It will not do, for example, to argue that Matthew and Luke drew their non-Markan material from an Aramaic source, each making his own translation into Greek. That in such a case they would have ended up with more or less identical Greek for their independent translations is almost impossible to envisage. Much the more obvious solution is either that Matthew copied Luke, or Luke copied Matthew, or the source they drew on was already in Greek. Here the case for a Q document already in Greek becomes very strong" —Oral Gospel Tradition (Eerdmans, 2013), p. 295. The only "scholars" who say the sort of thing pushed here are those who teach at places like Wheaton College (Illinois) (where, for example, people who convert to Roman Catholicism are fired for not being Christian enough), although maybe someone could find an exception (no one has done that yet). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: A concern I have had about this long-running edit conflict is that not enough has been done to resolve the conduct issues. Rather than bring it to ANI in the past, Ret.Prof has simply been overwhelmed by a number of determined editors from WikiProject Christianity. Also, it's likely that the arbs would have rejected a RFAR as not ripe for arbitration. Now that this dispute has finally reached ANI, the community can weigh in with a recommendation. A targeted T-ban by the community assumes the problem is due to Ret.Prof alone and all the other parties have clean hands. I'll leave that to others to decide. I think the arbs would take the case if the community decides that is the best course of action. Ignocrates (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words. And let me be the first to acknowledge I have much to learn. But neither am I the caricature described above! I too think the arbs would take this case if the community decides that it is the best course of action. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, one's patience has limits. This user has been told lots of times that the Gospel of Matthew being originally written in Hebrew is a fringe idea (and he has himself recently quoted scholars who also imply this), but does not want to learn and still pushes such fringe views at [6]. This edit is not even one month old, let alone over an year old. When users are confronted with people who just do not want to desist and do not seem to get the point even after it has been patiently and repeatedly explained to them, they could get angry and lambaste the offender. It's comparable to a troll eliciting angry responses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"has been told" - love it. The reason it's generally hard to find actual sources in scholarship calling something "fringe" is exactly because, true scholarship is rather hesitant to be reckless in tossing that pejorative around. If wikipedia reflected anything like true scholarship, it would not do so either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof said he was a professor whose main area of expertise is biblical scholarship. Any such professor would be expected to distinguish by himself between fringe and mainstream and to know when to stop making baseless claims. To this I add that he has employed quotes from Ehrman in order to defend viewpoints which Ehrman overtly rejects. His allegations that a superscript would prove that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew makes me wonder if he is capable of understanding how historical criticism works. If this isn't due to fideism, it is due to incompetence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Big Question: I think things have moved beyond the request I made in January at the talk page on the Gospel of Matthew for further references re an unsourced edit. Some have wondered why I just don't quit Wikipedia. I think the answer has to do with when I was researching the "POV railroad". Back in 2005 User:Melissadolbeer (a new user who left Wikipedia that year) said "This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia." It is still on her user page. I believe editors at Wikipedia should never be made to feel this way. I look at the way User:Davidbena was treated his first month at Wikipedia. It was so very wrong! In my heart and soul I feel something must be done. I will probably be banned from Wikipedia, but quit...never! And I believe that if this goes to arbitration, the Arbs will be shocked and outraged and take strong action. Wikipedia should be a safe place for us all! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone who does not agree with WP:VER, WP:SOURCES, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE is not welcome as a Wikipedia editor. This isn't a personal attack, it's just saying that Wikipedians aren't going to like such editor and such editors ain't going to like Wikipedians. This explains Davidbena's experience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Again what you say is not true! User:Davidbena was new to Wikipedia. He joined Wikipedia Aug 22 2013 and you brought proceedings to ban him at ANI Aug 27! I believe this is an abuse of this notice board. I also reviewed your comments about him. WOW If you were not protected by the POV Railroad you would have a T-Ban by now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

He submitted some articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but some independent editors (unrelated to your accusations of cabal-forming) rejected his attempts to create articles because of his overindulgence in using primary sources. And this was the very reason he was reported here. In fact, I have nothing against a newbie who did not know the rules, made a mistake, was told what the rules are, learned the rules and obeyed them and the same applies to his own case. I do not hate him, I just insisted that the policy on original research isn't optional. If he wants to edit Wikipedia he has to obey this policy, if he does not obey this policy he should not edit Wikipedia. I don't force him to leave, he has to make his own choice, but he cannot eat his cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe:This ANI is all over the place now! Once again I sound really really bad:

• "NPOV means keeping fringe material out of a major article like Gospel Matthew - none of your material has any place in this article. Yourself and previous advocates of "Original Matthew" theories have tried repeatedly to insert the theory into this article and it has been repeatedly removed. And yet here you are filling the Talk page with more advocacy for this theory. What will it take to stop this? Are you ever going to accept that this fringe theory does not deserve a prominent place in major New Testament articles on en.wp?" In ictu oculi (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "So we're back at this game are we? What has changed since the last time we reviewed the question at hand (see the archive for relevant discussion? Are we doing the old, look at all these wonderful WP:RS which exempts the material from the WP:FRINGE requirement again? That dog won't hunt and since we have been over this extensively before, rehashing old arguments is a variant of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is in turn a form of WP:DISRUPT, which leads us all traipsing over to WP:ANI to ask for a topic or article ban. OTOH, if there has been a shift in the scholarly consensus that now accepts the Hebrew hypothesis (of which I am unaware), then the article should incorporate the theory." Eusebeus (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment re POV Railroad:"User:Eusebeus, exactly. Unfortunately with User:PiCo semi-retired, User:History2007 retired, User:DougWeller on leave, I'm not sure how we can do this. One thing is clear, RetProf's firm conviction that the WP:TRUTH is that the "real" Gospel of the "real" Matthew is lurking in Hebrew fragments is just not going to go away. This is more than adequately covered in the article on the fringe theory, a single link is sufficient, but will RetProf accept not making a case for the theory in Gospel of Matthew article itself?" In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• "So let me say this. Wasting editors time with this kind of cavilling nonsense is disruptive and uncivil. If you would like to craft a nice paragraph that notes how scholars have come to reject Papias' claims of a Hebrew original while mentioning that there is some scholarship that has tried to maintain the theory is fine. Statements like "Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect" is, however, FRINGE-laden OR."

"Do we really need an RfC to determine that scholarly consensus rejects the idea of an original Hebrew Matthew gospel? No, because we can read. What we do need is a way to prevent disruptive editing from consuming the time of editors who, having committed to engage in good faith, are forced to take time to note that citing material that explicitly rejects the idea an editor is trying to promote, and having this advanced as a "shift in consensus", is nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility.

In other words: you're being rude. So stop." Eusebeus (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC

• More recently (see above) "Well, one's patience has limits. This user has been told lots of times that the Gospel of Matthew being originally written in Hebrew is a fringe idea (and he has himself recently quoted scholars who also imply this), but does not want to learn and still pushes such fringe views at [1]. This edit is not even one month old, let alone over an year old. When users are confronted with people who just do not want to desist and do not seem to get the point even after it has been patiently and repeatedly explained to them, they could get angry and lambaste the offender. It's comparable to a troll eliciting angry responses." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This bashing re fringe went on and on! It was both abusive and dishonest for it did not conform to WP:FRINGE. The WP:FTN was quite actually quite supportive of my position re fringe. I have found the discussion very helpful. I agreed with User:Shii that a "fringe theory" is one that is outside of the responsible literature entirely. If Ehrman et al. cover it, that is at least grounds to mention it, as the question is one of WEIGHT, not FRINGE. (See PiCo, and IRWolfie ) Secondly, we I have come to the conclusion that Ehrman is a reliable source per User:Smeat75. Indeed Ehrman is a leading source. Although it looked to me as though Papias' statement that Matthew wrote his Gospel in a Hebrew was not fringe, I have volontarily chosen not to bring up Papias or edit the Gospel of Matthew. (Note * I did not surrender my right to make comments on the talk page re the "attestations".) The POV Railroad saw this good faith gesture as a weakness and "Here I am". I now request that this be brought to arbitration.

Consensus I have just read through all this verbiage. WOW!!! The consensus seems to be that even a dim witted old man has the right to 'waste' people's time by requesting a reliable source for an unsourced edit without fearing a T ban. As to my request for arbitration re the POV Railroad close but not quite there yet! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've checked the first five results from the link you made you think that it wouldn't be fringe. The results are:

"We must concede," he wrote, "that the report that Mt was written by Matthew 'in the Hebrew language' is utterly false, however it may have arisen." W.G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. Howard Clark Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 49, 120-21.

But Papias' statement involves more problems than it resolves. ... At any rate, the canonical text of Matthew is and always has been the Greek version. Our commentary proceeds on the assumption that the Gospel was composed in Greek. ... But no responsible scholar claims that we now have access to the original Hebrew of Matthew's Gospel.

It is questionable, however, whether Papias is to be interpreted in this way and, even if so, whether Papias can be trusted regarding this information. ... (1) our Greek Gospel of Matthew is not the translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original;

Thus even for the most of the more conservative scholarly commentators, while varying in their views of Matthean authorship or influence, acknowledge that the matter is uncertain (Carson 1984b: 19; France, 1985: 34; Blomberg 1992a: 43-44; McKnight 1992: 528). Likewise, some scholars who reject Matthean authorship are troubled by the antiquity of the Gospel titles and the tradition of authorship; Luz complains that too many scholars simply ignore these difficulties (1989: 94-95).

The fathers, from Papias to Eusebius, who perpetuated the old tradition regarding the Hebrew Gospel, themselves rest their assertion on tradition, i.e., on reports that they had heard. And none of these fathers, not even Papias himself, was able to name a single person who had seen — not to say handled — this alleged Hebrew Matthew. The reports of the fathers regarding a Hebrew "Gospel" must be considered as hearsay, unsupported by a tangible fact and contradicted by all the probabilities involved as well as by several uncontested facts.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to quote me out of context, please inform me of it. I was asking a question in the diff because I am not informed on these issues. I was not asserting there was no fringe element. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Next step: mediation, arbitration, or what?

• (Introduced a new subsubsection to try to focus attention on getting an outcome: Just to keep minds concentrated, Ret.Prof says he wants arbitration. PiCo (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC))

I haven't read every single comment but from past familiarity with this dispute, this seems like a content dispute, about reliable sources and interpretation of sources. This isn't a disciplinary matter that should involve the big admin stick. It is complex, involves a variety of editors and viewpoints, it should head to mediation (preferably) or arbitration, not ANI.

Bottom line: I don't see "blockable" behavior here and most actions coming out of ANI cases result in blocks, editing restrictions or are a stalemate with no consensus. The charges brought up against Ret.Prof by Tgeorgescu are layered and complex and I don't think the blunt tools of administrators is the best solution for this impasse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. So that means mediation I guess, either informal or formal. Maybe I should take the initiative, since RetProf began by objecting to a specific reversion I made of one of his edits. Before I do, any other views? (If you agree with the idea of mediation, do you tink it shld be formal or informal?) PiCo (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking for venues to carry this forward, came across the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It's apparently for deciding on questions of due weight, which is what I personally think is at stake here. The step after that is formal mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. This involves a formal committee with binding results, and is the last stage of content dispute resolution, when all else fails - so I think the time for this has not yet come. If there aren't any persuasive arguments to the contrary by tomorrow my time (AEST), I'll start a mediation process. That gives RetProf in particular time to respond here. PiCo (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

All this time, and I never realised you were in my time zone... StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Us old guys sleep all the time. Keeps us from being Incompetent ! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Leave it to Liz to come to our rescue. I think what she says makes a lot of sense. I would prefer formal mediation for three reasons:

1. This dispute has been going on for a very long time
2. Besides this notice board, our dispute has gone to several other notice boards (See excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard above)
3. The result shall be binding and will bring this to an end.

Finally I would prefer LIZ to oversee the start of the mediation process. No offense to PiCo but she is neutral. She also has a great intellect and a kind heart! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The discussion at FTN brought out some important points. One of them was a suggestion made by Til Eulenspiegel to create a new article on the historiography of scholarship on the Gospel of Matthew. Such an article would be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia, and it might satisfy both sides of the dispute. With respect to formal mediation, I think it's a great idea, and I suggest contacting Keilana to act as the mediator. She is one of the most accomplished mediators we have here, and if anyone can mediate this complex dispute, it is her. Ignocrates (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation is preferable to informal mediation in a complex case like this one because it is privileged communication. Therefore, it can't be used as a soapbox to pile up "points" that can be used later as evidence in arbitration. While formal mediation is technically non-binding, every participant is supposed to make a good-faith commitment to achieve a result as though it were binding. If it becomes obvious to the mediator that one or more of the parties are unable to do that, the mediator will simply stop the process. Declaring that one of the parties is incapable of or unwilling to accept a mediated solution before even trying is a statement of bad faith. Ignocrates (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment I object to the statement that this is a content dispute. It is not. One determined editor who consistently appears promoting the same discredited viewpoint is not engaged in a content dispute. One determined editor who uses walls of text to obfuscate and prevaricate is not a content dispute. One determined editor who engages repeatedly in ICANTHEARTHAT and similar kinds of behaviour when presented with overwhelming evidence to refute his contentions and whose capacity for passive-aggressive querulousness is apparently tireless is not a content dispute. This is disruptive editing of the kind that makes it difficult for other editors to continue. Ret. Prof. has been repeatedly engaged in good faith on the questions he has raised. You are not allowed to game the system by simply stating the same thing over and over again every six months by gussying it up as a content dispute. It is not. Repeated patterns of disruptive behaviour are exhausting for other editors and detrimental to the aims of the project. This is clearly blockable behaviour and I suggest that as such, a topic ban with sanctions be enacted here at AN/I as a result. Eusebeus (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This simply is not true. Please look at:

1. Excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard above
2. My edit history
3. The WP:POV Railroad

But if you want to take this to arbitration, that is still ok with me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban Ret. Prof. as a POV pusher and cherry-picker of sources Ret. Prof usage of sources is truly disgusting, the cherry-picking is atrocious. In the RS/N thread above, he quotes only those paragraphs that support his POV. He "forgets" to include paragraphs that say the theory is a minority:

• The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament cites pages 301-303, but he forgets to quote from page 302 several sentences that contradict very strongly his position: "First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not hebrw or Aramain. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (...) This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek version of Mark and Greek Q as sources. (...) In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament. (...) [The author of Mathew] wrote very good Greek."
• The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology Ret. Prof. cites page 602 to support his theory, but on the same page it says that the opinion has a lot of problems and is held only by a minority of scholars.
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 states in the introduction that he is holding a minority opinion, and mentors told him that he could ruin his career by publishing his book
• Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching he cites pages 86 and 87, but in page 87 "When applied to our Gospel of Matthew, this tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized. Our Gospel is not only written in perfectly decent Greek, it was partly written by an author who was revising our Greek Mark into better Greek (...) It was therefore written in Greek. (...) How could such a grossly confunsed view of our Gospel of Matthew have arisen"

formal mediation is not binding and doesn't address editor's behaviour. This is no longer a content dispute, Ret Prof has failed many times to make a content-based argument. He is just resorting to WP:ICANTHEARTHAT, refusing to read sources provided by others, cherry-picking sources, cherry-picking new sources when the old ones are debunked, incorrectly claiming that his position is clearly supported by sources, eroding other editors' patience, and re-inserting his edits again and again until everyone gets tired of reverting his incorrect edits. This tendentious editing is a blockable behaviour, and worthy of a topic-ban.

After this disgusting show of cherry-picking, I wouldn't trust Ret. Prof with interpretation of any source. If he is a good-faith editor, then he is completely unable to read sources without filtering everything through his bias. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That simply is not true. My interpretation of the sources is solid. Look at them as a whole! In any event I have little doubt that I would prevail at either mediation or arbitration. I suspect that is why the POV Railroad wants me banned NOW. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The facts speak by themselves. You imply refuse to accept what sources say. Count me as part of that mythical "POV railroad" that wants you banned from wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Confused: If you feel strongly that "your interpretation" of the sources is the only right one, why are you so concerned about going to mediation or arbitration. If my understanding of the reliable sources (or lack there of) is as bad as you say, then you will prevail... and I can leave Wikipedia secure in the knowledge that I was fairly judged an "incompetent" who used "fringe". Seems reasonable??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And please bring Ret. Prof. to arbitration. He has filled this thread with such walls of text and excuses that we are unlikely to get anything done here. It's obvious that the community can't handle this guy. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems we had an edit conflict. (Both writing at the same time). I am glad you support arbitration. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation would be good if you agree to respect the decision. (i.e. if the mediator said that the Hebrew version of Matthew is held by a minority of scholars, would you respect that decision?) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: With respect to editor conduct, I would like to ask a rhetorical question, as a thought-starter. Is it appropriate conduct for a small group of editors to follow an editor around Wikipedia and delete everything they write? Just wondering. Maybe some of the arbs reading this would like to ponder that question as well. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the WPC crowd to engage in arbitration, and I think I can understand why. If one of the hard-asses on the committee becomes the drafting arb and chooses to dig into the root causes of this dispute, very few of them will be left standing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose closure

• I proposed this be closed as it's a majority of the same editors arguing their content POV to be correct and the other to be fringe. Don't care if it goes to Mediation or Arbitration, it just doesn't belong here. This is a content dispute and administrator's do not have any authority to determine content beyond what any regular editor might. This dispute takes a deep understanding and knowledge of thousands of years of historical and theological issues that need structure. Attempts by the subject of the thread to argue their point are unfairly criticized as "walls of text" despite them only being a few short paragraphs. Not sure when a pony wall started counting for 'walls'. Arbitration rarely decided who is 'right' and more often decides who behaved 'wrong'. By my count, Ret.Prof. wouldn't be singled out by Arbcom. With all of that in mind, and with consideration for the 0 progress this thread has made so far, I propose this simply be closed.--v/r - TP 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose closure, propose topic ban for 12 months for User Ret.Prof on content related to a supposed lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. It's clearly WP:FRINGE as the above shows. This has been going on for 4 years now and now it is finally here at ANI can easily be dealt with. The only reason for prolonging this is if someone actually wants fringe views in Gospel of Matthew and related articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the box below proves that this is not "clearly fringe". It proves the allegations against me ie "I am an Incompetent ignoring the overwhelming consensus that Papias was fringe" are false. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"The only reason for prolonging this is if someone actually wants fringe views in Gospel of Matthew and related articles." These types of comments are the problem and not the solution. Please do not infer the motivations of others. Content disputes cannot be solved by admins. Therefore, ANI cannot solve this 'easily' nor at all. This needs mediation for the content dispute or arbitration for the behavioral issues. If your method of arguing is exactly the sentence I've quoted, then I'm positive you will not want this to go to Arbitration because the quoted sentence is the very definition of what a battleground mentality is. This needs to close before you make anymore comments which might boomerang. Bottom line: WP:AGF.--v/r - TP 02:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that statement was intended to be merely predictive not to infer motivations, it's merely fatigue - the content issue, the weighing of WP:RS/WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE has been gone over again and again and again and again by multiple editors over 4 years. But whatever... In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure: Tom, formal mediation is the best opportunity to reach an agreement where all parties can feel they contributed something positive to improve the encyclopedia; as such, it represents the carrot in this dispute. Failing that, the stick is arbitration, where "breaking the back" of this dispute won't be a pleasant experience. Ignocrates (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure and everything else Ignocrates just said, which is very sensible and I can't improve on. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure and formal mediation. One element of the formal mediation agreement should be that mediator has discretion to issue a binding directive on the behaviour of all parties and that the parties agree to go to arbitration if it isn't abided by. (This is an expansion of Ignicrates' comment above - frankly I don't think Arbcom would accept this case at the present stage). PiCo (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree; however, if this ANI report is closed without an action and formal mediation is rejected or fails, the arbs will take the request for arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure As previously stated, I think this should go to Mediation. While I'm flattered to be asked and be considered a neutral party, I'm comfortable offering my editor's opinion but I don't have the experience to guide a formal mediation.

I also recommend against relying on the Fringe Noticeboard. From what I've seen, there is a zealousness there by a small group of editors in labeling points of view and specific editors as representing "fringe" which then leads to them being targeted and driven from Wikipedia. While I agree that pseudoscience should not masquerade as science, I don't believe every minority viewpoint is fringe and needs to be eliminated from WP. IMO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure and mediation. I always thought the Apocalypse was a Hebrew book. I asked Dr. Elaine Pagles about this and she said one of her students wrote a dissertation, which is now a book, entitled, "Parables of War: Reading John's Jewish Apocalypse," John W. Marshall, 2001. On page 2 of that book, Marshall writes, "Putting it bluntly, I argue that the Apocalypse is a Jewish and not a Christian document." Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure: The sooner the better per Tom P above. Then we all take some time to heal from the wounds we inflicted on each other. Finally, we work through the mediation, not with a view of "winning", but with the goal of doing what is best for Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Note I've asked RetProf (on his talk page) to pick a mediator from the list. This will avoid him feeling that he's being railroaded (an expression he's used above). I've also asked him to collaborate with myself and Ignocrates on the wording of the approach. PiCo (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Or he can simply request mediation and the mediators will select someone from among themselves. I'm happy to assist with the details (saw your note), and I agree that Ret.Prof should be the one to initiate the request for mediation. Ignocrates (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure and mediation, however I think that Ret.Prof should receive a warning about misrepresenting the sources he quotes. If the Hebrew Matthew isn't fringe, why was Edwards warned of putting his own career in danger? This would not happen if he was advocating just another minority view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is actually a very good point! The Hebrew Gospel is seen as trap in some circles. I have received a simular warning, which nearly came true this week here at Wikipedia!!! Yet it also landed Edwards a generous invitation to pursue the project as a Member at the Center of Theological Inquiry in Princeton. Many scholars have now bravely come out in support of Edwards, including Markus Brockmuehl of Oxford and Loren T Stuckenbruck of Princeton. Then in 2010 for the world's leading non Christian Biblical scholar made this Statement! At that point the existence of the Hebrew Gospel ceased to be the minority position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the Story

Now you have seen how the POV Railroad works. I have been accused over and over and over again of being Incompetent and ignoring the overwhelming consensus that Papias was fringe. Now please take a few minutes to open the box below. Please note this is just an excerpt. Going to the source ie Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would be good - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Gospel of Matthew Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Google Books However there is a dispute as to whether this is fringe? The views of Papias were preserved by the early Christian historian, "Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301 Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, (Casey 2010. pp 87-88) and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” (Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101) & (Edwards 2009 pp 2-3) The historical data is both "striking and incontestable". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117) See most up to date sources: David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303 William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602 Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88 James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 See also older sources Issue Does the aforementioned scholarship on the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories? Importance Although most scholars no longer believe that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, many do believe the Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead or source of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew (hence the name). (See composite authorship) - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC) What are the grounds given by those suggesting that this is fringe? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Hmmmm My honest answer is there are not any. A NPOV discussion of the topic should have both those who support the Papias tradition and those who oppose. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC) If nobody has suggested that this is fringe, why are you asking here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) The above material was deleted from the Gospel of Matthew and on the talk page it was said to be fringe. Best you look at it directly for I would hate to be accused of misrepresenting their position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC) So, in a nutshell, the question is: is the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis fringe, or not? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I think that would be off topic. The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead! Most most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section in their article devoted to the Papias tradition in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Ret.Prof, please do not edit your posts after people have responded to them. It makes understanding the flow of discussion difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry I forgot the link and to sign - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Looking at the Gospel of Matthew talk page it appears that grounds have been given for the suggestion that this is fringe. As to whether this is correct or not, I am in no position to respond, and I suspect that few other WP:FTN regulars are likely to be able to either - Biblical scholarship is rather outside the scope of the sort of issues usually raised here. Evaluating sources regarding a specialist subject such as this may well be beyond most of us, and I suspect that you might do better to take this to dispute resolution, rather than expecting any sort of 'yes' or 'no' answer here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC) You are correct. They seem to agree the matter is clear, has been resolved and is a dog that won't hunt! I remember Casey, Ehrman etc being debated "as fringe" in Oral Gospel traditions, the heated discussion on the talk page as well as the fringe notice board discussion (consensus Ehrman not fringe) and I even remember some discussion with User:Smeat75, User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:IRWolfie-, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz, BUT I have no recollection of a "Fringe debate" on Ehrman, Casey, Blackwell etc re the Gospel of Matthew?? Nor was it ever brought to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ?? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC) After a somewhat confused start due to my typing skills, we must look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories and see if they apply here. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Allow me to jump in here and offer an independent perspective. There needs to be a call by neutral third party observers on whether the topic Ret.Prof describes, i.e. the content, is fringe. Taking this to dispute resolution implies there is a conduct problem. That is beside the point here. I believe an RfC was tried previously, but it was dominated by the very same people arguing strenuously for removal of the material. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Well said and thanks for getting us back on track! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC) WP:DRN deals with issues where there is no conduct problem. Someone should probably notify wikiproject Christianity, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC) This is a complex textual problem with a long history. It may well be beyond the scope of FTN. I agree that DRN would be a good next step to deal with the content part of this dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC) You are correct. I will notify wikiproject Christianity now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC) On the Google Scholar search Ehrman states in Jesus Interrupted that Papias was rendering fourth-hand information and that there are multiple credibility issues with this information. The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis#20th century article states the 20th century consensus: there was no Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. So, Ehrman isn't fringe, but he does not pretend that there were a Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, but what needs to be accounted for, speculative conjectures of modern scholars aside, is why Church Fathers from the earliest times right up to scholars at the end of the 19th century all thought there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. There is an abundance of primary literature attesting to that fact and many reliable secondary sources analyzing and summarizing that primary literature. Therefore, this should be discussed as a problem of WEIGHT rather than FRINGE. Ignocrates (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree, the term for that is historiography, and it is not only encyclopedic, but the stuff encyclopedias are made of: outlining the history of what people have thought, not only what some people say today. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC) There are multiple issues here. There is a difference between the claim that "there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" and the "canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew". No one has presented any relevant scholar who believes that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew; probably because no relevant scholar actually believes that. The problem is that the material that is sought to be added [7] is so misleading as to leave that impression. Even the different claim that the gospel to which Papias was referring existed and was written in Hebrew is a minority opinion (Casey's). Ask yourself: What is the Casey- and Edwards-sourced material even doing there? Is it illuminating the topic of the article (the canonical Hebrew of Gospel)? Or is it talking about the separate topic of the Hebrew gospel, and just muddying the waters? The view of McGrew and McGrew that all the early external evidence agrees that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew is completely fringe. Luckily, their view is not one of relevant scholars. They are not established critics of the New Testament. These remarks are merely incidental to their building of an Argument from Miracles (the subject of the paper). Neither are the editors of the volume (Craig and Moreland) established critics of the New Testament. And neither is the volume meant to be a source for New Testament criticism. The endeavour is metaphysical/theological in focus, not historical; and it is even one-sided at that (see Patrick Arnold's and Glenn M. Harden's reviews). What was said above that "The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead!" is just plain wrong. Only McGrew and McGrew are. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree. For something to be a fringe theory, it must be A) FRINGE and B) a THEORY A) FRINGE Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not fringe as its existence is supported, not only by the above contested sources but also by older sources from Lessing to Ehrman. Davidson, (1848) p xii, Ebrard 1863 p 530, Baring-gould, 1874 p. 122 Nicholson 1879 p 26 Morison, 1902 p xxxvi Schoemaker 1902 p 199 Barnes, 1905 p 361 Cassels, 1905 p 420 Paralipomena by Pick 1908 Schonfield, 1937 p 246 Andrews, 1962 p 46 Harrison, 1971 p 152 Pritz 1988 p 83 Bütz 2009 p 176 Just a quick comment: Of all these books, only 3 date from the last half-century, which indicates that they're not quite the current state of play. The most recent is Jeffrey Butz, whose most recent book, The Secret Legacy of Jesus, "offers the thesis that the Judaistic teachings of Jesus were passed in underground fashion from groups such as the Nazarenes and Ebionites to the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, via the Cathars and Freemasons" (that's from his Wikipedia entry). I have doubts that Professor Butz is quite within the academic mainstream. PiCo (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC) How can you claim that a formerly standard theory is now fringe? I'd understand if it were geocentrism but this is literary theory, not hard science. It is at least a "former standard theory". Shii (tock) 06:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC) A theory is fringe if it has no significant backing by reliable sources. Many theories which were previously standard (or even still are in the sense that many people subscribe to them) now have no backing in reliable sources for New Testament scholarship. For example, it was a standard view that Matthew the disciple of Jesus wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Now no reliable source supports that theory; so how could it not be fringe? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC) I agree fully, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC) B) Theory Matthew's Hebrew gospel is not a theory but a "statement of fact". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117) This "statement of fact" may be contested. Scholars can debate whether or nor the "Gospel of Matthew" was a translation of the "Hebrew Gospel". They may argue that the Hebrew Gospel is the Fountainhead but they cannot say Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is theoretical. Therefore WP Fringe Theory cannot apply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Well, not quite. The "fact" is not that the Hebrew Gospel existed; rather, it is that the Church believed it existed for 1700 years. Simply put, if the "mainstream" conjecture of modern scholarship is right, then 1700 years of Church history is wrong. Our job as an encyclopedia is not to elucidate the TRUTH of these two positions; it is to document the ongoing debate. Ignocrates (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I stand corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) There is a broad consensus that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. So whether Matthew's Hebrew Gospel actually existed (as in minority view), or not (as in majority view) is irrelevant in an article about what is now called the Gospel of Matthew, since if it ever existed it has nothing to do with what is called the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree that there is broad consensus that the Gospel of Matthew is not a a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Casey, Ehrman & Edwards all state this. They further state that Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew and then Casey argues that Hebrew Matthew was the fountainhead or source for the Canonical Gospel of Matthew. Can you name any sources that disagree with Casey. Most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. They present both those who support and oppose Papias. We should follow the reliable sources and also write our article from NPOV Google Books - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC) That's not what Casey 2010 argues. Casey argues that Matthew the apostle collected sayings in either Hebrew or Aramaic to which Papias was referring and which were a fountainhead for some traditions, and these traditions were in turn sources for the canonical Gospel of Matthew. He is not saying that Matthew wrote a gospel or some such work in Hebrew and the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew used this as a fountainhead or source. Such implies that what the apostle wrote was like Q or the Gospel of Mark, which is not what Casey is saying at all (in fact, he suggests that some of these traditions from Matthew the apostle made their way into Q [p. 89]!) But even this view of Casey has reliable sources that disagree with it, including sources which you have been citing: Duling 2010 (p. 302), Edwards 2009 (pp. 260–262). Try asking instead: What reliable sources agree with Casey on these points? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC) This discussion has become about SCOPE and WEIGHT, which can only be decided by consensus. Therefore, it should be ended here and continued on the article talk page or in DRN. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE - the meaning of Papias' statement is indeed discussed by just about every important scholar who writes about the composition of this gospel, but the important thing is that the overwhelming majority (and it really is overwhelming) don't see an Aramaic or Hebrew original behind it. We do discuss this in our article - we have a whole paragraph about it - and that's enough. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC) I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Is that correct? Is the discussion over as far as this noticeboard is concerned? I'm not sure how much this noticeboard can help rather than wikiproject christianity/religion. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC) I too agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE and I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Still, we should keep the discussion open a little longer to make sure nobody is left out and that everyone who is interested has been notified. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC) There is a simpler point to be made: you have quoted some reliable sources in order to prove exactly what these sources disagree with. So, you made a misleading summary of what these sources actually say. Do you expect such edits to pass as good faith edits? You were either unable or unwilling to render the actual viewpoints of the sources and posited your own view as if it were the view of the sources. So, this is not a case of weight vs. fringe, it is a case of something made up against something verifiable. The point which you have made up is not supported by the sources, except by the fundamentalist Christian apologist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC) In fairness to Ret.Prof, he brought this question to FTN because of a lot of loose talk on the article talk page about the fringiness of the topic of a Hebrew Gospel as a justification for the deletion of reliably-sourced content. I think we are in general agreement that this dispute is not, and never was, about FRINGE. The beginning of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith signals the end of rational discussion, so I propose this emotive dialogue stay on the article talk page and we finish up here. Ignocrates (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC) @ Tgeorgescu - I just finished reading your comments, and I think I found the problem. You were reading from an older version of Ehrman. Please look at the following quotes, but sure to follow the links to see their context! Feel free to point out any errors, add any important material you feel was left out and of course add more up to date sources. Thanks for taking the time to join our discussion. Taken from David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303 Author and Setting The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together [text variant “wrote”] the sayings [logia] in Matthew the Hebrew [Hebraiois] dialect [dialecto ̄] and each one translated [he ̄rme ̄neusen] them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302) Taken from William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed)' The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602 We encounter a striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language...the widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. (quote from p 602) Taken from Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 After quoting the Papias tradition which states "Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue" Still, on one point there can be no doubt. Papias may pass on some legendary traditions about Jesus, but he is quite speciflc—and there is no reason to think he is telling a bald-faced lie—that he knows people who knew the apostles (or the apostles' companions). This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101) Taken from James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 This is corroborated in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.7 and 14, where Eusebius says that Papias confessed to having received the words of the apostles from their followers. Of course, if John the Elder was in fact John the Apostle — although this seems unlikely — then Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead. It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age. Eusebius records Papias's relevant testimony: “Matthew organized the oracles (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”8 This testimony does not specifically identify the Hebrew work of Matthew as the Hebrew Gospel, but it is reasonable to equate the two.9 Papias's primary intent seems to have been to emphasize the Hebrew composition of the work. (quote from p 3) Taken from Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88 Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86) It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew.It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87) It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now I hope this clears up the confusion. Thanks for being patient with an old guy who was clearly overwhelmed! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC) @ Ignocrates Thanks for restoring sanity when needed! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

- Ret.Prof (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the box below containing the humongeous copypaste from another noticeboard, Prof. It appears above as well! (Also collapsed.) Did you really mean to add it twice? Bishonen | talk 22:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

You are right, we do not need it twice. I deleted the top one. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This lengthy excerpt shows why this dispute is complex and shouldn't be addressed in AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick overview of content issues in lay terms

This is actually sort of straightforward. That said, I hope this doesn't over-simplify things.

In the 2004 film The Passion of the Christ, the characters spoke in Aramaic (as was historically correct) and Latin (for artistic reasons). In that time and place, the vernacular language was Aramaic, but the lingua franca was actually Koine Greek. So:

• Jesus would have preached in Aramaic; but,
• Someone who wanted to write something that would be intelligible to the greatest number of people would have written in Greek.

Today some of works written at that time in that place are very well known to us: they include the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Of these four, the first three "include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar wording".

There is a tradition that Matthew was the first Gospel written. That's why in they are are in that order in the Christian bible. It is now broadly accepted that the Gospel of Mark was the first one written. (Mark was written first. The writers of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a starting point, a shared source of the sayings of Jesus that the writer of Mark did not have access to, and their own independent sources.)

There is a tradition that that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Aramaic (or, even less plausibly, in Hebrew). There is nothing controversial about asserting that Q and the independent sources for Matthew included material in Aramaic. It is a huge step go from this and then to claim that Matthew was originally written in any language other than Greek. The scholarly consensus is that Matthew was written in Greek. There's also a common sense test. Why would the writer of Matthew
- read Mark in Greek;
- translate Mark into Aramaic;
- add their own independent and Q sources;
- write their Gospel in Aramaic; then,
- translate the text back into Greek?

To summarise the summary:

• There is a tradition that Matthew was written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek.
• The scholarly consensus is Matthew was written in Greek.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That is an accurate summary of the modern scholarly consensus. However, accepting that consensus also means that 1700 years of Church history and scholarship up to the end of the 19th century was a mistake. That is what Davidbena and Ret.Prof are reacting to. Nowhere in Wikipedia (that I know of) is this change in thinking documented. That is why Til suggested we need a new article describing the historiography of scholarship on this question. Does that make sense to everyone? Ignocrates (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see a section in the article Gospel of Matthew about it. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

But a contingent of WPC editors adamantly do not want that and have deleted every attempt to include that section in the article. That is the point of the dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Instead, it was decided by WPC localconsensus to restrict the WP:SCOPE of the Gospel of Matthew article to the modern consensus. Thus the need for a second article on the historiography of scholarship. However, several attempts have been made to create a second article on a Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and all of them have been merge-deleted (railroaded) by redirect. Ignocrates (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Some editors tried to add a section on Gospel of Matthew. Unfortunately, Davidbena's attempt seems to be unsourced original research, and Ret. Prof.'s attempt says "some modern scholars" instead of "a minority of scholars" (and it cherry-picks sources, as I showed in my comment above). Understandably, these attempts were nuked as soon as other editors saw them.

I think that Ret. Prof.'s intent is good, but his approach isn't likely to result in any improvement to the article.

I think that the efforts of editors should be oriented to a more productive approach: taking Ret. Prof.'s attempt and rewriting it. Make clear that it's held a minority of scholars, fix the selective quoting, explain it was the majority belief for many centuries, list the problems with Papia's version.

That could result in one or two rounded paragraphs. The history section would be greatly improved, I think. Readers would be informed about how the theories on the origin of the gospel have evolved over the centuries, and why. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric Kvaalen's contribution was also nuked, and therein lies the problem. The various efforts which included reliable sources (like Eric's) should have been retained and improved per WP:PRESERVE rather than being summarily deleted. I expressed my thoughts about this deletionism on the talk page at the time, so I won't do it again here. Anyway, mediation would be the perfect vehicle to implement what you are suggesting in a controlled environment. Ignocrates (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue is sufficiently complex (and requires familiarity with a rather technically recondite secondary literature) to warrant its own article. Once you start to get down to specifics in a short section of the Gospel of Matthew, those complexities, which go down to individual scholars challenging each other esp. over the last decades, get very subjective, and inevitably would flow over the natural limits. Just glance for example at one of the most recent surveys, Sang-Il Lee's, Jesus and Gospel Traditions in Bilingual Context: A Study in the Interdirectionality of Language, de Gruyter 2012, and you can get a quick idea of the fact that every position is contested, and has multiple angles. Ret. Prof. has perhaps his heart in the right place, but he works by indiscriminate aggregation, not by conceptual concision and winnowing. Barring fresh archeological/papyric/inscriptional evidence we will never know the truth, and must therefore limit ourselves to describing scholarly positions, as the various theories ebb and flow in popularity.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Indiscriminate aggregation? I like it! See Dunning–Kruger effect for insight into the tendency to weight all sources equally irrespective of age or quality of scholarship. (Please don't take this as a WP:PA; it's just background information.) Ignocrates (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(re PA) Of course not. It is, by the way, curious that so little attention in this context is paid to the implications of Paul's letters, written in Greek perhaps even 2 decades, and almost certainly at least ten years, before Mark. Whoever JC was, word about him was spreading through the Jewish diaspora and among gentiles via Greek long before the Gospel versions achieved literary form, and during Paul's early missions, much of the Aramaic-Galilean tradition must have circulated, given literacy was at 30%, via the usual form in such societies (which were, like Palestine, bilingual in Greek and Aramaic), oral transmission of memorized tales. Consider these two points and much of this fascinating niggling about what came first becomes moot (or indeterminate methodologically). The assumption is, first Hebrew hence a Jewish teaching (disliked by the millenial hermeneutic antisemitic tradition we are shrugging off). But since Jews in the diaspora were bilingual, getting at a 'Hebrew' original to prove the obvious (Christ was, like most if not all of the early leadership, born and died as a believing Jew) is, in my view, unnecessary. Blame Paul, then, he was an avatar of the JS-H, I suspect. CheersNishidani (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to digress with a brief example of Aramaic underlying the Greek text - consider the miracle story of Jesus cleansing a leper in the Gospel of Mark, where Jesus is either "compassionate" (Alexandrian/Byzantine text-types) or "angry" (Western text-type). (It's hard to be both.) These are very different words in Greek but very similar words in Aramaic, see diff. I contributed this bit of insight in Jan 2008, and of course it was rapidly deleted. Wouldn't want anyone getting upset. Ignocrates (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. We've identified the problem, and there are behavioral issues as well as content issues here. So now, lets look for a solution.

I propose that:

• The article Gospel of Matthew be kept as it is. It reflects the current scholarly consensus. It is simply a given that Wikipedia follows current scholarly consensus.
• The article Historical and alternative views of Gospel of Matthew (or a similar title) be written. "The issue is sufficiently complex (and requires familiarity with a rather technically recondite secondary literature) to warrant its own article" (per Nishidani)

This article would include:

- reliably sourced content about Matthew in "1700 years of Church history and scholarship up to the end of the 19th century" that was the previous scholarly view (per Ignocrates). "Readers would be informed about how the theories on the origin of the gospel have evolved over the centuries" (per Enric Naval)

- reliably sourced content about modern alternative views (Per Davidbena and Ret. Prof.,) with recognition that they do not reflect current scholarly consensus (per everyone else, including me)

How does that sound as a solution?--Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Support, not necessarily with that title, but those who wish for expansion should supply a title that explains exactly what they propose to do on the new page, since they will be working it. An indication of meta-sources that deal precisely with the genealogy of interpretations of Matthew with regard to the Hebrew theory would be useful, also, to assure everyone WP:OR is to be avoided.

To give an added reason for this split, to enable the technical issues to be addressed adequately in a proposed Historical and alternative views of Gospel of Matthew, let me illustrate by responding to my friend Ignocrates's slight digression above on Mark 1:41, where the manuscripts provide two readings (ὀργισθείς /σπλαγχνισθείς), and some argue this is evidence for an Aramaic substrate (strictly speaking, the evidence is not from Aramaic but a dialect of that, Syriac:ethraham/ethra'em). This is one of several hypotheses. Bart D. Ehrman, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2006 pp.120-141, roundly dismisses what you take to be a fact ("a brief example of Aramaic underlying the Greek text.") and even then appears to slightly misreport Bruce Metzger by the way, unless his entry in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,2nd ed.1994 p.65, differs from his entry in the Ist edition 1971 p.76):'I have to say that arguments like this have always struck me as completely mystifying; I have never heard anyone explain how exctly they are supposed to work. Why, that is, would a Greek scribe proficient in Greek and copying a Greek text be confused by two words that look alike in Aramaic?' (p.128). That is one solid reason why the deletion of your edit here would be technically justified, whatever the original deleter's reason. In short, general overview articles simply cannot get bogged down in nittygritty details that provide ostensible factual evidence for what are disputed theories - they must stick to a general survey of the main conjectures and interpretations using high quality RS that deal with a synthesis of the state of the art for each argument. If complex controversies on details demand attention, a fork is required. Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I should have said "putative example". Sorry about that, I let my private POV slip there for a second. I try hard not to do that. Anyway, it's a moot point for me because I will never touch that article again. Ignocrates (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I got a notice that someone had mentioned me here, so I took a look. I see that Ignocrates mentioned the fact that my edit was "nuked" back in May. That's true, and I complained at the time that PiCo had simply reverted my whole edit just because he didn't like one particular thing – he thought I was givin' too much weight to the theories about earlier versions. But Ret_Prof came to my aid and restored my work. Later I put back some edits that had been done after mine, and the version is this: [8]. I think it does a decent job of presenting the theories about a Hebrew/Aramaic version. A little better than the present version. But I guess that's a topic for the Talk page of the article. By the way, Ignocrates, that's an interesting point you made about Mark 1:41. One of us should put it back in! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point, the conversation has gone way beyond an argument for admin action and into the nuances of textual criticism which seems better placed in mediation or a WikiProject Talk Page discussion. Time to close this case before it doubles in length again? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz, since it appears that no action is going to be taken, it can just age off into the sunset. There is no reason to spend anymore time on this including admin time. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Preparation of a request for formal mediation has ground to a halt due to Ret.Prof "stepping back" again. Therefore, I have reopened the matter with Tom Paris. Ignocrates (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Tom has indicated that I start mediation right away. Therefore I will comply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, we have identified the problem, so lets look for a solution. See: User:Shirt58/Historical and alternative views of Gospel of Matthew.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Today I will be filing a Formal Request for Mediation. The draft can be found on the talk page of User:PiCo. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Woozle effect

Some eyes on this:

Woozle effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

would be appreciated, as it's been discussed on reddit and is attracting weirdness and an associated AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woozle effect. Thanks. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected: too much IP disruption. Perhaps someone can check to see if the current version is the best, or if perhaps some unverified content should be deemed trivial and not of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on this would be good.

What I want to say is that it is difficult if not impossible for any average Wikipedia user to navigate the enormous numbers of policies that guide Wiki adding. AND YET, I learned a long time ago, that Wikipedias were called to IMPROVE and ASSUME GOOD FAITH not just REVERT.

THE WORLD CANNOT BEGIN TO TELL WIKI how obnoxious your REVERT HAPPY editors are. OR HOW THEY VIOLATE "IMPROVE" and "ASSUME GOOD FAITH".

Nevertheless, the truth is that the page for Woozle Effect is FINE. Google Scholar lists 440 examples of it being used in academic papers. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=woozle&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C3

IT is on it's face notable in academia.

BUT the best exact specific precise accurate correct strict rigorous particular methodical categorical rigid way to express that to make every wikipedia editor happy is WAY BEYOND ME.

What I note is that long time wikipedia editors LOVELOVELOVE their revert skills, and then their threatening people with various bans who disagree with that.

So eyes on this page please, because it is clear that the AFD is feminist inspired reddit brigaded vandalism.

And yes, I assume that any edit I place at wiki anywhere imncluding this one will result in a deletions and a threatened ban. Because that's how wiki rolls.

184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• "feminist inspired reddit brigaded vandalism"? Whatever. This IP added this section, rightfully removed by Alf--now tell me that this was not an expert usage of the revert skill. Also, no one's threatening you with a ban; you're not being oppressed. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not whatever, and this is precisely why you were wrong to insert yourself into it. I documented the reddit feminist brigade of this page at the AFD discussion. You can see it for yourself here: http://www.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights/comments/1wxaoa/discovered_wikipedia_page_with_clear_mra_bias/?sort=confidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.115.101 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "This was not an expert use of the revert skill." Well, depends on the criteria -- it's a fine revert vis-a-vis maintaining content standards. If part of the goal in engaging potential new editors is to convert them into productive editors, not so much. I'm not saying Alf should have done anything different; while they could have left a more personal encouraging note on the IP's talk page, I'll be the first to admit the expected payoff is fairly low: (meaning that encouraging a random IP often won't be successful, which is not to say it couldn't / can be with 184). NE Ent 12:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• You know what ("you" in general, not the IP editor), perhaps semi-protection is too heavy-handed. If any admin thinks it so, please go ahead and change it or remove it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Also it should be noted that for all the all-caps about assuming good faith, the IP editor is not showing much of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's actually important. Bringing attention to the community of an off-wiki attempt at meatpuppetry is. NE Ent 13:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
      • That effort, taken by itself, is to be appreciated, of course. But I cringe when someone tells me that, again, the feminists are behind it, or some such thing. It's one reason I cancelled my memberships of the Hair Club For Men and the Men's Rights Movement. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SNOW on Woozle Effect AFD ?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woozle effect has had 8 straight Keeps & no Deletes so looks like WP:SNOW.--Penbat (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No. ES&L 12:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Close it Obvious unanimous support. ⛵ Admiral Caius ⛵ 17:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why in the world would anyone want to close this AfD early? It was a good faith nomination and civil and productive conversation is ongoing. There's no need whatsoever to rush this process.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Because (as much as it might look like otherwise sometimes) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and when there is (as WP:SNOW is defined) not a snowball's chance in Hades of there being anything other than a Keep result (which, with everybody there !voting Keep is blatantly obvious) leaving the AfD open for the full week 'because it's supposed to run for a full week' is, in fact, following bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. At this point the 'civil and productive discussion', no matter how civil and productive it is, is in fact discussion about the article - which is not what AfD is for, it's what the article talk page is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• The woozle page is not without (NPOV) problems, mostly because the source selection is from a fairly narrow field and that's not easy to fix. In particular, the critics of the Duluth model (which itself is of feminist inspiration) do enjoy using the "woozle effect" accusation in their works. Some of the abusive language leveled at the AfD nominator (by experienced Wikipedians to boot) was really uncalled for. This isn't a slam dunk SNOW keep case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:AirportExpert and copyrighted images

User:AirportExpert has repeatedly uploaded third party images of airliners copied from websites, without any indication that such use is permissible, and indeed sometimes in the face of clear language claiming copyright. See File:Barq Aviation L-1011.jpg and File:Air Trust il62m.jpg for two current examples, if they have not been deleted; the latter is a repeat. I don't claim any great expertise in image copyright, fair use or non-free use matters, but a pretty serviceable rule of thumb for me has always been, "pictures taken by other people that you find on the internet are presumptively copyrighted and aren't fair game for uploads" (absent an appropriate license or fair use rationale). I've had a couple of exchanges with AE about his liberal re-use of third party images, see my Talk page, but he has continued to upload them. I raise the issue here because either 1) my understanding of these issues is incorrect and I'm overreacting or 2) AE is a repeat infringer and warrants a stronger warning than I seem to be able to supply. (NB: AirportExpert previously contributed under the name of Msloewengart, where additional copyright / licensing issues appear.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Their edit summaries (and edits) at Lockheed L-1011 TriStar also show a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia's attribution policies work. (For instance "There is no need to cite information that is received from other Wikipedia articles".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I do a fair amount of copyright work and your rule is a good working rule. The parenthetical comment is important - I occasionally run across people over-reacting and missing that a site had a CC license for the text, or a Flickr image had an appropriate license, so I just want to emphasize (if others are ready it) that the parenthetical comment is important.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, crap. We had a long-term abuser from years ago who did this as a serial pattern, uploading dozens and dozens of aircraft images they scraped with false credits, across six or seven accounts I found. I can't recall the name... Moonriddengirl, is this ringing a bell? (poke) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Verybluesky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was one of them. I'm looking for the rest. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha. ANigg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANigg/Archive, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ANigg, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ANigg. Account created in 2007 and commenced copyvios in 2008. Seven known socks, plus Verybluesky matched the pattern but the SPI data was too stale by then. Verybluesky was created just a few months after the block of Skyfox265, the last SPI confirmed sock, and duck test passed a match. Reviewing ANigg sock edit patterns, AirportExpert pops like a flashbulb... But is four years since Verybluesky was zapped, having been created in January 2014 ( Special:Log/AirportExpert ). Crap. Assuming it's him again, and not a false positive match, where has he been for the intervening four years, and what myriad damage has he left us from those four years? .... Aaarrrrgggghhhhh.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Msloewengart, now AirportExpert, was created in December 2013. It should be noted that AirportExpert seems to have no understanding of WP:V/WP:N/WP:RS, if that helps one way or the other. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ANigg didn't either. I'm going to mail functionaries and ask to what extent SPI results from 2010 may still be accessable to see if there's any match that could be made, or if anyone remembers info that far back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

AE was himself a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Msloewengart/Archive. That being said, while I don't know a ton about image copyright rules, I do have a decent nose for socks and to me, AE and his predecessor edit with a different tone than the ANigg. Plus, while the subject matter is a bit arcane, it wouldn't altogether surprise me that Wikipedia might draw in more than one clueless / determined airplane anorak. Still a CU might be helpful, if possible - JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Verybluesky seems more like AE - not very communicative, lots of edits and tweaks to articles about charter operations. JohnInDC (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, did you get a response? Is this being pursued further? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Response was that records are not usefully kept past three months, so we are out of SPI luck. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• {{Checkuser needed}} to evaluate this thread. There is a prima facie case and a sock/sleeper check seems very well warranted.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bump to prevent archiving. MER-C 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• At this point in time, I don't see how a checkuser can help you. All but one of the accounts listed in this thread is stale, and beyond that there is no evidence of socking presented in this thread, just comments, concerns, and ideas. If you do have further info and/or evidence, I'd recommend you take it up at SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I blocked both CensoredScribe and Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the totality of behavior over the last week above (ANI section on CensoredScribe's categories, now closed/hatted by me, with a community sanction enacted on CensoredScribe). In closing it up, based on the totality of the week's behavior, I blocked both users for 72 hours for disruptive editing.

Tparis on my talk page suggested this had been unfair to Ryulong. Another editor on R's talk page agreed with the block. I believe both parties were ultimately disruptive, enough to block. However, I would like to invite other admins and editors to comment, and any admin to overturn if you feel I was off base. I still believe the block was good and called for. But I could have misjudged. Input sought. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think they were disruptive in different ways. Ruy was way out of line deleting comments and wikipoodling, and CS was more obvious. Equal blocks for both was the only possible end to that, or else one would have "won" that ridiculous dramafest DP 10:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think it's way too mild. I don't see it mentioned elsewhere, but processing C:CSD this morning, I found Ryulong adding a bogus CSD tag to an article of CensoredScribe's, for instance. Perusing Ryulong's block log, it's not obvious that it's likely to discourage them from engaging in further harassment once the 72 hours is up, but 72 harassment free hours is better than zero. WilyD 10:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Harassment? Have a look at Talk:Lilith#Is Lilith Karina and is Karina a giantess? as just one recent example. Monitoring such obvious problematic editing should result in a barnstar. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That someone may have been on the right side of an edit war is not an excuse for harassment. WilyD 11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I oppose Ryulong being blocked at this time. I think that while the block was meant well was just a little off target. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I also oppose the Ryulong block, as Ryulong wasn't as much in the wrong. This looks unpleasantly close to the Wikipedia equivalent of "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't happy about CensoredScribe adding Category:Mythological sword fighters to El Cid. His block was a good one, not sure about Ruy's block at all. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with DP, they were disruptive in different ways. Ryulong focuses his/her behavior on individuals he/sher believes are sockpuppets or are habitually disruptive. Asking for an interaction ban when this goes too far, if effective, can get him/her back to productive editing. There is no clean-up. However, CensoredScribe was randomly creating new categories without paying much attention to other editor's concerns with them. Several people have asked CS to stop or slow down and it seemed to have little effect. Now, categories, once created, have to go through a sometimes lengthy and tedious CfD process to be deleted so there can be quite a lot of clean up involving many editors. I'm not saying that all of CS's new categories weren't good, it was more that he/she wasn't paying attention to other editor's asking him/her to be more circumspect, to make categories that fall in line with WP:Categorization guidelines.

I'm not sure that they deserved equally long blocks. I think Ryulong will respond to admins asking him/her not to edit war with CS but I'm not sure that CS even realizes his/her mistakes because he/she is so convinced that he/she is right and correct in their edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Both of them were out of control over this categorization madness. Neither looked like they had any willingness to stop and discuss. Hopefully the block got their attention. My suggestion would be drop the duration to 24 hours and but add some restrictions. CensoredScribe would be prohibited from adding categories unless they first getting clear consensus on the talk page. Ryulong would be prohibited from removing a category added by CensoredScribe unless they first getting clear consensus on the talk page. Both are futher limited to ONE post per day commenting on the other on any given page (so one post here, one post on article talk page A, one post on article talk page B). This would stop the stupidity but still allow some discussion. Then figure a longer-term solution. Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose Ryulong's block. This is a case of a user with a real competence problem and if I were Ryulong I'd be beating my head against a brick wall too. Here are some examples of CensoredScribe's edits:
  • [9] Implying gender discrimination and then canvassing support.
  • Then he goes around spamming talk pages with questions about categories: [10][11][12][13][14][15]
  • Then we start getting into the important stuff, is (read edit notices) Galdalf a SUPER soldier?What about Jedi's? They've got the force! And then clearly they've mislabeled Aragon as only a regular soldier because I think being an Elf makes him SUPER!
• I mean seriously, folks, we've got an editor who is certainly good intentioned but is just wasting our time. Sorry to say, but I think Ryulong would be justified to follow him around per WP:HARASS, "it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above);"--v/r - TP 18:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any question that CensoredScribe is incredibly lacking in WP:COMPETENCE, but I don't think Ryulong is a good selection for someone to wander around cleaning up after them; their long history of getting into bickering is part of the reason, and another is that it is likely to generate more of the trolling puppets from the sockmaster that likes to harass him. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, there seems to be a pretty good rough consensus that Ryulong's block is unwarranted or at least needn't be that long. Are there any objections to reducing the block to time served at this point? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you get "a pretty good rough consensus that Ryulong's block is unwarranted" when so far here there are nearly twice as many people supporting it as opposing it? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we definitely reading the same discussion? I count 3 explicitly opposing Ryulong's block, 1 call to give Ryulong a barnstar (which I'll count as implictly opposing), a couple others expressing doubt in the block (Liz, Dougweller), 1 to reduce the block to 24 hours, some comments that neither explicitly oppose or endorse, and 1 strongly implicit endorse (WilyD). How did you get your count? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking only about whether the block was warranted, I count Georgewilliamherbert, DangerousPanda, WilyD, Liz, Ravensfire, Lukeno, and myself (the "another editor" referred to in the OP) as speaking in support; Johnuniq, Hell in a Bucket, TParis, and yourself as opposing, and Dougweller as "unsure". So that's 7 to 4, plus 1 undecided. Of users supporting the block, there's one here (plus another one not mentioned here but active on Georgewilliamherbert's talk page) who supports a reduction in the duration. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I'm the "another one" (that's kind of exciting): I support an unblock if such-and-such a request is made; see Gwh's talk page. Last time I looked, a couple of hours ago, I got no indication whatsoever that Ryulong was aware that their edits were deemed very problematic. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Truthfully, I have less concern over a three day block and more about post-block behavior. I read CensoredScribe's Talk Page and it looks like some editing restrictions are in place. If CS's errors decrease, I don't think that Ryulong will be stalking him/her. I should add that while most people have focused on CS's creation of new categories, categorization oversight should also include placing articles into and out of categories. Because a small proportion of editors focus on editing categories and with HotCat, one single-minded editor can do a lot of damage in a short period of time if they don't understand Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• In all fairness, Ryulong responded in the same manner as the last two blocks in December,[16] almost got him an ANI in January. I think the 24 hour and the 3 day block in lieu of a much harsher Arbitration Enforcement block is at this point a sign of amazing resistance because the time prior to that was also waived because he was blocked during that same exact period. Last I checked, going against explicit sanctions by Arb Com is not something dependent on being blocked for a different matter. The fact its so short on the back end of so many recent blocks shows mercy and that two wrongs do not make a right. And its almost over already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with what Psychonaut wrote here, i.e. the block was justified. And no, they did not receive the same "punishment". CensoredScribed also got an indefinite editing restriction. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) If I recall correctly, Ryulong should have known better in editing and wandering over the line for being disruptive. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong indicates that at one time they were an administrator, but were striped of the bits. I'm more inclined to leave Ryulong's block in place. They've been at the drama central many times for a great many reasons, having tweaked the right people to cause a full out fight at AN*. I'm tired of the perpetual drama machine. Hasteur (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as my block expired and no one bothered to unblock me early can we {{hat}} this thread?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pigsonthewing and BLP

I am concerned with Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) and his view of BLP. He has been creating a whole heap of unreferenced BLPs, examples include Csaba Sógor, Franck Proust and María Muñiz de Urquiza. All three articles are now referenced - but the references have been added by other users. Pigsonthewing seems to be on some kind of mission to churn out as many of these poor, BLP-violating articles as possible, and I view his editing pattern in this regard as disruptive as he seems to be expecting others to clean up after him. Despite me raising the matter at his talk page 48 hours ago, he continues, with the latest, on Salvatore Caronna, containing one 'reference' so poor that it is basically unreferenced. As a minor issue, you will also note many of the articles containing basic formatting errors, further evidencing that Pigsonthewing shows little care for the articles he is creating. My request for him to add a basic reference (something as simple as a bare URL link to an online biography) to the article before clicking 'save' does not seem onerous. GiantSnowman 17:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• For such an experienced Wikipedian, these actions are very troubling. I think the creations are linked to a message on his userpage; "I am working on the European Parliament project over the next five days and shall have limited opportunity to edit here." My guess is that he is just churning these out and intending to come and fix them later, but that doesn't sit well with BLP at all. I've read his comments in his talk page discussion, and this is incredibly concerning; it's an atrocious response to a genuine concern, and shows a tremendous lack of interest in following policy. I wonder if Pigsonthewing has ever read WP:BLP? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I have a tremendously low opinion of unsourced articles (I am in favor of deleting them immediately, regardless of subject matter), and an even lower opinion of people that create unsourced articles (with the caveat that if the creator has only been here for a week, they might not know better). Now that he is aware that users consider this a problem, and now that we know that he doesn't intend on handling the issue constructively, I recommend that Pigsonthewing be blocked for disruption if he creates another unsourced BLP article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I wouldn't create something like this but to call it a BLP violation is putting it a bit strongly; the first two Google hits confirm. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • While not a "violation violation", the fact is that all new BLP articles are required to be sourced, full stop; while in that particular article's case you could say it's technically sourced, the other three linked in the OP don't even have that and would be instantly - and justifiably - {{Blpprod}}ded. While I can understand Andy's desire to have all European MPs bluelinked - and we should - creating substubs like that is...inexplicable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's an important requirement they be sourced and concerning her is not taking the time to do so. Looking through it's probably best to merge these all into a list, as most don't appear to have anything else worth saying (i.e. a biography) and parroting a self-written bio is probably not a good idea. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• The project is Wiki Loves Parliaments / European Parliament:

"We now have the opportunity to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg in February and perform a photography and editing project for the 764 MEPs there. In particular as the next elections for the European Parliament are upcoming in May, these new articles and photos are under a strong focus of the public."

If these articles are going to be "a strong focus of the public", the public isn't going to get much information from these sub-stubs. But maybe the MEPs who are up for re-election (or their aides) will nip in and fill them out? The prospect of getting their own articles in Wikipedia before the elections may have helped spur the MEPs to grant access for this project. Nothing wrong with that per se, but surely the requirement isn't to create an article literally within 30 minutes of taking the MEP's picture as was the case here? I don't understand the rush. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how this post is actionable. Certainly you can't be calling for administrative sanctions against someone for creating stub BLPs? If you see one floating out there without references, prod it and it will be deleted per policy. My impression is that these are being created with high likelihood that they will be fleshed out in the short term. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is utterly inappropriate to create a whole host of unreferenced super-stub BLPs. This is not a complaint about "stub BLPs" (these are one-liners), and there are far more than just one being created without references. For such an experienced Wikipedian (one with 110k edits at least), this is completely inexcusable, as his response to the case has been. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• From an established user creating articles in this type of condition is unacceptable. They are fully aware of our policies and a view to come back to them simply isn't good enough, should be left until they have the time to do it properly. And the part of the reply by him saying Your alternative is to not be a dick is entirely uncalled for and certainly doesn't address the clear issues here.Blethering Scot 20:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah well. Those stubs are really not good and very disappointing--but it can be argued that we're better off with them (I'm not saying I subscribe to that argument). The initial question about them was fair, and then stuff goes downhill, with a bit of support from "helpers" on both sides. Andy calls Snowman a dick, Snowman goes to ANI. But try as I might I cannot find where our BLP policy forbids a BLP without sources from being created in the first place. (That a sourceless BLP can be prodded doesn't mean a sourceless BLP cannot stay.) So no measure will be taken against Andy, and unfortunately his stub creations and the subsequent overreaction (this very thread--sorry, GS) is just one more unpleasant experience for all involved. Best thing to do for all involved editors is to turn some of those articles into DYKs; that's the only thing that will make you feel better. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but to say this is a "overreaction" is unfair, numerous editors seem to share my concern about this editor's lack of regard for BLP. GiantSnowman 11:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Giant Snowman and count me as another concerned editor. If you create a series of unreferenced BLP's and you have 110k edits, you are way out of line. I don't care what policy or lack of it says, common sense in my view says it is just selfish, and the name calling by Pigsonthewing compounds the attitude problem. As far as editor and admin action on this issue, since it appears to be ongoing, I'd be willing to look at a ban on new BLP's for Pigsonthewing as a remedial step. I further find it troubling that there has been no response here. I'd call it gaming the system. This all approaches a protective block, as I see it. Jusdafax 12:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would support an indefinite topic ban on the creation of all new BLPs, to remain in place until such time as Pigsonthewing can understand they fully understand the policy and the problem. GiantSnowman 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While it's not quite the "Paris is the capital of France" quintessential wiki-example, saying in The Age of Google "María Muñiz de Urquiza is a member of the European parliament" (EP) is pretty darn close. Has Andy falsely accused anyone not a member of EP as being one? I'll quote part of WP:BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." (emphasis original). Is Muñiz de Urquiza's membership in EP actually being challenged? NE Ent 12:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• However that ignores the fact that all BLP articles must have one reliable source, it also ignores his questionable reaction to being brought up on it. Someone with his longstanding should clearly know better on both counts. Their is no need or urgency to create these articles in this state.Blethering Scot 12:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "all BLP articles must have one reliable source" -- wp:blp says that where, exactly? NE Ent 13:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with NE Ent at 12:46. Cut Andy some slack here. He's a very busy, highly experienced contributor, who generates very solid material -- as well as launching initiatives like WP:WikiVIP, which really caught the media imagination.

Currently he's trying to get a lot of stuff done in the European Parliament, as well as give a good impression of WP to some important opinion makers. Can we please therefore show a bit of trust in an editor with a long and excellent track record, and leave him to get on with what he's doing. If there are still problems in a week, then by all means we can come back to it. There's a lot he will be aiming to do in a very short period of time with this EU Parliament outreach, in a foreign country with contacts he needs to make and build as he goes along. So let's get out of his way. However stubby these articles may be in their initial transient state, there is every reason to be confident they are likely to evolve rapidly, and long-term issues are unlikely. Jheald (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me add that Snowman's objection to Salvatore Caronna was paricularly absurd. The guy is an MEP, so clearly notable; and, while the article was only a micro-stub, its content was sourced by the reference given. If you're introducing Wiki to a group of people, a stub like this can be exactly what you need as a baseline, to then show the article growth process (as well as giving a basic active URL that's then in place for any automated or semi-automated tools you may be then using).

Again, Pigsonthewing is a very experienced editor, doing (yet again) important outreach work. So let's give him some trust, and the chance to get on with it. Jheald (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but to even remotely compare the widespreadness of the knowledge of an MEP's name/role to Paris being the capital of France is utterly absurd. Almost everyone knows that Paris is the capital of France. Many people, myself included, have absolutely no idea who these people are, and there is absolutely no excuse for creating an unreferenced BLP, because it takes 10 seconds to dump in an unformatted reference, thus negating the problem. If you don't have enough time to reference a BLP, then either create it in userspace, or do not create it at all. I cannot fathom how any of you are defending these actions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• He's is an experienced editor thats the point. There is no reason whatsoever that an experienced editor should be creating articles in this state, time is no excuse. We have userspace and afc for a reason nor is the European Parliament project an excuse that these should be rushed into article space. Personally i would support a topic ban as he clearly has no sense of wrong about creating articles of a living person in this state and is intent on ignoring that policy. His reply to GS and further ones on his talk page were also highly uncalled for.Blethering Scot 18:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• If ya'll want to make up a rule that no unsourced BLP articles can be created, start an RFC. But as of today, there is no such rule. NE Ent 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has no rules, and you know that full well, Ent. You also know that it is inappropriate for any user to create an unreferenced BLP; that's the whole reason BLPPROD exists, after all. It is excusable for a newbie who doesn't have any grasp of policy. It is categorically inexcusable for an editor of 110k edits, let alone one whose initial response is "Your alternative is to not be a dick". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Pigsonthewing has dismissed our concerns as nonsense. GiantSnowman 13:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Uuuuuuuuurgh. Guys, there's a significant difference between random drive-by editors creating single-line articles on Brazilians who may or may not have played professional football (watching those BLPs is a hell of a task, and one which those responsible should be thanked for) and project ambassadors (with years of experience) creating them as part of a hands-on attempt to get more editors involved in the project. This isn't some sort of breaching experiment designed to break down our rules on BLPs: quite the opposite. Nonetheless, Andy is (as one of our most public editors) someone who should be setting an example, and it would be unfortunate if those very editors he's attempting to encourage ended up getting rapidly batted for creating their own unsourced BLPs. I'll have a word. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Which he has since removed without a response. GiantSnowman 18:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you helping? Is this helping? Is it making your proposed topic ban more likely? If I didn't know all the actors involved here my eyes would certainly have rolled out of their sockets already. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Pigsonthewing's refusal to deal with the matter in a constructive way helping? No, it's making it worse if anything as it appears that he doesn't give a damn. Also what topic ban? Another editor mentioned one, I said I would support it - that's it. There has been no formal proposal. GiantSnowman 12:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that he cares rather more about the root of the matter (improving our biographies) than the (quite bafflingly, in this case) naive onlooker might assume. I do think you're correct that he has no interest at all in being chided by random admins for small-scale pseudo-infractions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Chris, your position is incredibly confusing. You chide Pigsonthewing for creating unsourced BLPs in your first comment, and then seem to be suggesting it is all OK in that one? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And I told someone else off for asking him not to, and then did it myself. The inconsistency is truly baffling, so long as one completely ignores the provided rationale. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrector11744

Hi, I was hoping to get other eyes on this. While acting in a reviewer capacity, I reverted a religious demographics table submitted by editor Corrector11744 here to an article on Moradabad. I rejected the table for being improperly sourced--it uses another Wikipedia article as a reference. I learned that the table had been removed a few minutes earlier by Deor, also for being unsourced. A random IP 103.18.72.81 tried to revert my edit, but I took care of that. Assuming good faith, I looked at the Demographics of India article and couldn't find any mention of Moradabad. I even tried to find the religious distributions at the Census of India, for example here, but I couldn't track down those data. I left a note on the user's page, but then of course the user ignored the notice and added more unsourced religious demographic tables to articles. Again, I couldn't find these regions mentioned in the Demographics article. Deor reverted these tables, and Corector11744 re-reverted without explanation or improvement of sources. My primary purpose for this report is to ask admins to look into this and maybe offer the user some guidance, or if it's clear that the edits are disruptive, that the editor be discouraged from continuing. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(Responding to a post on my talk page by Cyphoidbomb.) People's adding unsourced information, usually in graphic form, about the religious demographics of Indian towns is a very common occurrence. I usually delete it when I see it, as I've never been able to find such information in authoritative sources (and specifically in Indian census data) and it seems to have the potential for contentiousness. Deor (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've undone a few of these. THe editor was also adding to a number of similar tables added by 101.218.185.95 (talk · contribs) last October. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. @Dougweller:! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted another such change on Hyderabad. This user changed the religious percentages by exactly 5% (skewing things toward Islam) and then inserted a bar chart with the unsourced numbers. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I considered an indef now (I view indefinite blocks as just that, blocks that can be lifted at any time if we are convinced they should be lifted) but gave a final warning instead. Ping me if this continues. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Noting the somewhat WP:DUCKy contributions of this IP user. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 14:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Katrina Villegas

As per Callanecc's suggestion I thought of bringing this issue up here. I know it wasn't that long since Katrina started posting and copy-pasting hoax articles of Filipino child actors, but this is eventually becoming a nuisance, given his persistent and relentless efforts at recreating and spawning faked articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Support - Having had to perform unnecessary good-faith research until it occurred to me that this might be a sock jobber, I would support a ban so that future victims could revert all edits instead of having to go through requisite good faith welcomes, and good faith explanations for why you deleted their hoax articles, and good faith warnings, and good faith detailed reportings at AIV or SPI... Because we all spend far more time getting our "this person is an asshole, and here's the proof" case together than the sockpuppet spends committing their nonsense over and over again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Agreed on that, as that would save time with knowing what's going on. Not to mention that since this is a regional, Philippine-centric subject, and relatively few people from outside the country knows the ins and outs when it comes to local showbiz, it would be of significant benefit for other users and admins to be informed about Kat's modus operandi. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Support ban – Agree with Cyphoidbomb; this editor has wasted far too many others' time. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamped to prevent archiving. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Persistent disruption over several months --JamesMoose (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Persistent hoaxers have absolutely no place here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Chronic hoaxsters have no place on Wikipedia.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Richard Daft and serial evasion of community-wide WP:BAN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The subject speaks for itself and I'm sure many admins are already familiar with the Daft saga and its impact on WP:CRIC and the site generally. Two things to be said first: one, if this is not the right forum, please direct me; secondly, I do not intend to keep this account open for long as I prefer the privacy of IP editing but I think an account is needed to fight a troll like Daft effectively.

Okay, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive for recent activity (cases 1.37 to 1.41 starting 27 Dec 2013). You will note if you care to look through the CDTPP contribs that Daft got away with that account for a long time because he behaved himself (for a while at least) and because some in CRIC decided to forgive him and make him welcome. However, leopards and their spots. In due course we were back to normality and especially so in the case of 86.138.166.244 where these diffs are totally unacceptable and show Daft for what he is: see abuse in this diff and this diff towards User:Nedrutland. Again in this diff and this diff and on User talk:86.138.166.244 where abuse to User:331dot continued.

Having seen those edits and realising that Daft is continuing to flaunt his ban and get away with it, I decided to act myself. I will point out that I have worked on CRIC as IP for a long time and have encountered Daft before so there is history and I am sick of his antics and his inflated view of himself. He makes grandiose claims to be the "most expert cricket writer on the site" and yet his "good edits" can be summarised at best as mere WP:TRIVIA or trite POV. Take this input for example. See how typically incompetent the edit is and then ask yourself if anyone really needs to know that the Earl of Winchilsea was 61 when he played in a minor cricket match in 1814!? As I say, that is Daft's idea of "good editing". Bad enough but what really annoyed me was his habitual condescending abuse towards Nedrutland and 331dot highlighted above. I decided to implement the terms of WP:BMB and remove all of Daft's input, "good" as well as bad, and reawaken the CRIC members to the problem. Users like Nedrutland and 331dot are not members of CRIC (at least, I don't think they are) and they should not be having to clear up a mess that is largely CRIC's doing. Why is it CRIC's doing? Because certain people in CRIC have failed to act against Daft in compliance with site policy and have even offered him sympathy and a safe haven.

While I was removing the Daft inputs, I found this diff and this diff where Daft had done his usual by running from WT:CRIC to user talk pages and, as usual, the person he ran to was User:Johnlp. Now see this diff] whereby Johnlp politely refused to have Daft removed from his talk page. This was, fair enough, before TYPGTTO was blocked by the Daft SPI but the posts are still there and so is this one, unsigned as usual, though Johnlp does expect "peremptory deletion". Checking his talk page, I see that has already happened per this action by User:Black Kite in Dec 2012 (the 2012 Daft posts and Black Kite's erasure of them were all, well, erased at the time). That sets a precedent where Johnlp is concerned.

Without wishing to annoy Johnlp who is a top class editor and a good writer, I believe the admins need to instruct him forcibly if necessary about WP:BAN and WP:BMB. Daft sees him as a sympathiser, with some reason it must be said, and his talk page as a safe haven. Take Johnlp out of the equation and Daft has nowhere to go. If he appears on WT:CRIC, someone will revert sooner or later. If he attacks an article, the chances are that it will be on someone's watchlist. I strongly recommend that the Daft edits now on Johnlp's page are removed and that the page is then protected, regardless of the owner's view on that. His only possible complaint could be that bona fide IPs will be unable to write to him but, his page history shows that he hasn't received any IP posts apart from Daft in the last three years, so protection will not impact him in the slightest while it does keep Daft away.

I would also ask that an admin places a notice on WT:CRIC asking members to be vigilant and to use WP:RBI whenever they spot anything that Daft has done, citing WP:BAN or WP:BMB as their reason for reverting.

Finally, there is one Daft edit I couldn't remove as the page is locked and the owner has gone. Could you please remove that one too to complete the job, especially as it insults two admins User:The Rambling Man (I think) and User: Dweller. Sorry this has been a long post. Thank you very much. HCCC14 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify that I know nothing about what HCCC14 describes above other than my brief interaction with the IP address mentioned. As such I am unable to comment on any other aspect of this matter. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fair enough but as I have mentioned you, it was only polite to let you know. Thanks again. HCCC14 (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A notice seems to have been placed on WP:CRIC to watch for this guy, and the latest socks are blocked. Is further action needed here? As an aside, re: "the privacy of IP editing", how exactly is editing in a such a way that allows you to be geolocated more private than editing from a registered account? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I accept that as far as it goes except that I strongly recommend action on User talk:Johnlp to remove the Daft posts and then protect the page to prevent more being placed there. As I say, this will take away Daft's "safe house" and leave him with nowhere to go. By refusing to remove Daft posts, Johnlp is assisting Daft to evade his ban. I must remind you that User:Black Kite set a precedent here in December 2012 and it must be followed up to keep Daft off that page.

Re your aside, IP addresses can be very quickly changed and I don't care who knows I live in the Midlands. So do several million others. Just checked my current IP and it geolocates to a place that is over two hours drive away in another county! But if you have an account you're stuck with it and no escape from unwanted attention. Pros and cons but I like IP. And so does Mr Wales according to one of his public pronouncements. :-) HCCC14 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the throes of moving house and am not around much currently so I haven't been keeping up over the past couple of days. It's likely my internet connection will disappear over the weekend for up to two weeks (as UK broadband connections are slow to arrive, and then slow too when they get inside our houses). So I'll be brief. But I think I ought to respond to something that seems to have got suddenly rather hysterical. My pleasure on WP is to write my own articles and to improve others and you'll see from my edit count that that is what more than three-quarters of my work has been in the past eight-and-a-half years, a lot of it on cricket. I come on here for quiet enjoyment (I'm close to retirement, so work is no longer fun), and because I think WP is essentially a good thing. I don't get involved in fights or politics, and I try to stay polite to all other contributors: and much more important to me than who they are is the quality of the contribution they (and I) make. My over-riding rule around here is WP:AGF and that's stood me in pretty good stead. So if someone makes a remark on my talk page that strikes me as worth responding to, then I'll reply. If some of those people then turn out to be reprobates, or even "new users" with rather uncertain past affiliations and associations, or who ever, then I hope I'll treat them with the same courtesy. On "Banned" users, I presume the process by which they were declared unacceptable should sweep their contributions from all pages, my talk page included: I'm simply not interested enough in this process to spend my limited WP scouring articles to see who's now in the dock or who has already been summarily dispatched. Strangely, in eight-and-a-half years, AGF has worked for me, and I've had almost universal politeness back, even from now "Banned" characters: my talk page may well be one of the blandest in WP. Maybe because I'm not rude to them, and because I try to be careful my articles are at least competent and not careless, I don't attract insults and vandalism much at all.

If I have internet access over the next day or so, I may respond further if there are any points or questions anyone would want to raise with me... but if I don't respond, it'll be because the switch has been thrown on my current system. Sorry if that sounds discourteous, but housemoving is like that. One day you're here, the next you're... Johnlp (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, this response indicates you knew full well who TYPGTTO was : Daft. As for WP:AGF, your sarcastic reference to "past affiliations and associations" is anything but AGF. And wrong. Okay, I admit I was a little hasty in removing the TYPGTTO posts from your page TWO HOURS before the SPI was actually completed. I apologise for my haste. Now that both TYPGTTO and 31.50.133.173 have been officially confirmed and blocked as Daft socks, the offending and offensive posts must be removed in compliance with WP:BMB.

You say above that you "come on here for quiet enjoyment" and that WP gives you "pleasure". Fine, but doesn't that also apply to those members of CRIC who have been continually harrassed by Daft for several years? How about giving them a bit of understanding and help so that they too can enjoy "pleasure" and "edit quietly" without being harrassed and libelled and subject to sick taunts every few days? How would you like to routinely receive vile garbage like this? You wouldn't, would you, or else why did you write this and [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket&diff=prev&oldid=589622362 this] about someone who finally cracked under extreme provocation and retaliated against Daft? Not that I condone "vile" retaliation, as it must have been to warrant erasure, but it seems to me that double standards are operating here.

All you have to do if Daft posts on your talk page is revert and say "not interested" in the edit summary. If he persists, remove and cite WP:RBI or even WP:BMB. If he still persists, get one of the admins to protect your page. Get that done anyway. You have received no non-Daft IP posts in three years so what have you to lose?

The three posts any decent editor would object to are this one and this one by TYPGTTO (now blocked as Daft sock) and this one by SPI-confirmed Daft IP. All three posts are WP:PA against other CRIC editors who are not presently able to respond. All three posts breach WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and just about every other policy and guideline on the site which insists on respect towards other editors and all three are a continuation of everything you will find in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive. You know perfectly well who the author is and you are in direct breach of WP:BMB by effectively sheltering one of the worst trolls operating on the site.

You will have noticed, I hope, that I have not been here as a single-purpose account because I have also taken the time to improve two CRIC stubs. Nothing special. Just a consolidation of information that someone might find useful someday. However, even that little bit of positive effort has contributed kilobytes more to CRIC than Daft has "contributed" in several years. You might like to think about that too when you consider "quality of the contribution".

Finally, I wish you well with your removal. I had a nightmare move from Hampshire to Derbyshire three years ago but it was worth it in the end. It's over to you now. If you do not act or respond by tomorrow night, I will assume you have lost your connection and will remove the Daft posts (and my own!) citing WP:BMB in the case of Daft and WP:AGF in my own case. I shall then complete my retirement. HCCC14 (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. As I unexpectedly continue to have internet access, I’ve dealt with the offending the contributions to my talk page as I have no great wish to challenge or get into a debate about the WP:BAN policy as a whole. I am however very uncomfortable with the way you have pursued me in this way, and pretty uncomfortable with the continuing search for manifestations of Richard Daft, which borders on the obsessive.

You say you have not created this HCCC14 persona as a “single issue” account, yet you had done no other editing except on Daft issues before you put up the “retired” notice on your account, though you then returned to open this thread and after that did some other editing. You say you are not a renamed User:AssociateAffiliate and, by AGF, I am bound to accept that; yet let me reassure you that none of the insults that AA has had to endure at the hands of Daft approached the comment that AA himself made which resulted in the admin intervention; you, of course, will not have seen that comment since it was erased. Had the admin not intervened, my view is that AA and WP as a whole could have been looking at a libel case, and perhaps more, with Daft rightly as the plaintiff, which would be an extraordinary position. As I wrote at the time, I saw and deprecate the provocation by Daft, but that doesn’t excuse the response, which went some distance beyond.

You might also consider the interesting case of User:CDTPP, now banned as a Daft sock, but whose talk page indicates welcome and encouragement from User:BlackJack. Jack, if you remember, had four or five years of unpleasant attention from Daft far in excess of the criticisms that AA has endured, with his professional integrity continuously impugned. Yet it seems that they reached a rapprochement and even worked together in some areas.

No one could condone Daft’s outbursts against individual contributors and his sporadic vandalism, and of course they should be removed and reverted wherever they occur. But WP:BAN is patently very easy to circumvent, so, like one of those fairground games where you hit the rat with a mallet, no sooner have you dispatched one Daft manifestation than another one pops up. You can perhaps win individual battles here, but you’re not winning the war. And continuing to wage the war in an episodic way such as this is potentially just as irritating as the occasional Tourette-ish flurry of unpleasantness from Daft.

I think you need to change your strategy. If you concentrate on the disruptive edits rather than the person of the disruptor, then you’ll find that many of us already do that kind of work of reverting and removing anyway, as well as tidying up articles that contain wrong facts, bad links and verbosity... and trying to create some reasonable contributions of our own. Johnlp (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There was no "continuing search" by me. I was reading WT:CRIC one morning and followed the link to the Burley Park article where, lo and behold, was Daft. Couldn't miss him. I scanned the page history and soon came across the typical condescending insults and unnecessary aggression towards NedRutland and the other guy as mentioned above. Seeing that, I decided something must be done, given that so few others are prepared to do anything. I have only "pursued" you because you are not complying with WP:BMB and you are granting Daft a "safe haven" from which to sound off his stupid prejudices and harrass other users. I see the London-based IP below has named three of the main targets of Daft (there are two others he has overlooked) and it goes without saying that those five are all among the top ten contributors to CRIC and all of them have outdone even you in terms of quality and probably quantity of contribution, whereas Daft has contributed NOTHING.

As for the AA comment when he retaliated, I have already acknowledged that it must have been bad or he wouldn't have been blocked and the post wouldn't have been erased. But that is OUT OF SCOPE. This topic is about Daft, not about AA, and the bit about legal is entirely inappropriate here. Daft is subject to community-wide WP:BAN and you as an editor are bound to comply with that and deploy WP:BMB, though acting in accordance with WP:RBI, whenever and wherever you encounter him, even if he is only correcting a typo.

You say "concentrate on the disruptive edits". I have done. I removed a few dozen of them the other day! The point is that you and the other CRIC members have NOT been removing them and you have, until today, stedfastly refused to remove Daft posts which attack other editors from your talk page. This despite the precedent set by User:Black Kite in December 2012 when he was forced to erase posts from your page in what must have been similar circumstances. Given that BK erased those posts, they must have been extremely unpleasant too.

The bottom line here is that you have breached WP:BAN by deliberately refusing to deploy WP:BMB. If I were an admin, I would seriously consider blocking you, especially in the light of the Black Kite precedent. I would certainly issue a stern warning. It is all very well for you to advise me about what I should do, and I will take some of your better points on board, but the ball is deep in your court in terms of your, shall we say, accommodation of one of the worst trolls on the site.

As promised, I intend to effectively terminate this account today. I hope your removal goes smoothly and, finally, I would like to thank you for belatedly removing Daft from your talk page. HCCC14 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:50.121.48.234

After User:50.121.48.234 was blocked for a period of one day, he has made an offensive edit on his talk page, insulting the administrator who initiated the block. If I am at the wrong page, please direct me. KJ ^{click here} 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, my approach would be to just revert it and move on. If they continue adding insults, we could revoke talk page access, but that seems a bit premature at this point. Monty₈₄₅ 17:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Arsten: might interest you. m.o.p 17:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've revoked talk page access. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I the interests of accuracy, the insult was to the admin (me) who responded to his question; clearly in a way he found unsatisfactory. The block was imposed by another admin is response to this. A short block is reasonable, and I suggest that his activity be watched, ideally by an uninvolved admin.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that at least one attack was directed to Mark Arsten: [17] wait, the IP editor is already blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The I.P. editor is back, making disruptive edits and insulting other users again. He has a dynamic I.P., as well as using proxies in talk pages. List of known I.P. addresses that he has used: ("50.159.28.153", "24.44.203.79", "67.43.136.166", "50.121.48.234"). I expressed concern that he would return after his block expired, and unfortunately, that appears to be the case. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Outrageous paid COI accusation by Wnt

I'm writing about this comment by Wnt on his/her user talk, and particularly the fifth (last) bullet in which he/she, clearly referring to me, suggested to a third editor in a most thinly veiled manner that I have engaged in paid COI editing at Wiki-PR and ALEC. What this has to do with the previous discussion is beyond me, except that in the last few days I've butted heads a bit with Wnt on mass surveillance issues. What I find so outrageous about this conduct is that Wnt is a very experienced editor but apparently hardly even lifted a finger before engaging in such wiki-libel against me. As I explained to him/her, the accusation was not only verifiably false but verifiably the exact opposite of the truth. For example, in December I even brought a WP:COIN report against another contributor to ALEC for paid COI editing.

The full discussion is here. I repeatedly demanded a retraction and an apology, but what I got was a refusal and then a whitewashing.

Unfortunately I don't think this can be written off as a one-time incident. It is part of a larger pattern. Several editors who have been working together on mass surveillance articles have been smearing other editors in similar fashion (examples here, here, here). One editor of this broader group was indeffed for related conduct in November. Advocacy editing is one thing, but repeated punches below the belt are another. I don't believe an indef is appropriate in this case, but a clear message should be sent that the community will not tolerate this sort of behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like you are getting your feathers ruffeled over nothing. Nothing you or Wnt has done (that I can see) has ben egregious, or even bad. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it either. Can you (DrFleischman) quote what Wnt said that actually bothered you? That diff is pretty long and mostly not about you. If you have a beef that Wikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillance exists, then that's probably not actionable. (As a sort of disclaimer, I've created articles about such topics myself, but I didn't even know there was a related WikiProject until now. I don't see how that is any worse than, say, WP:WikiProject Socialism.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think from the context, the objection is to the appearance of great writers who make a habit of editing Wiki-PR and American Legislative Exchange Council, people who note on their userpages that their views don't represent those of their employer... I know nothing about this, but I suspect it all sounds expensive. That does sound like a rather oblique accusation of COI paid editing, but not at all clearly aimed at anyone in particular, at least not unless you chase down the references. DES ^(talk) 23:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, given this (for more context) this ANI report seems to be some editors not seeing eye to eye on the Snowden etc. stuff fighting some proxy battles on ANI now. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

DES is correct, the full offending language is:

“ That said, I don't mean to underestimate the value of your effort; the appearance of great writers who make a habit of editing Wiki-PR and American Legislative Exchange Council, people who note on their userpages that their views don't represent those of their employer... I know nothing about this, but I suspect it all sounds expensive. You can donate money to Wikipedia and have them spend dollar for dollar in combat with these folks, or accomplish the same for free at the cost of nothing but ... frustration. Just because Wikipedia pays nothing doesn't mean it costs nothing for somebody with the opposite agenda and little general public support. There have been idiots who have gone down to protests to smash shop windows who may have inflicted less financial expense, and that at random. ”

Translation: "Keep up the good work; Dr. Fleischman is being bankrolled by unpopular special interests, and righteous volunteers such as you and I can put pressure on their benefactors by forcing them to spend more money on him." I can certainly explain how Wnt was referring to me (something he/she semi-acknowledged in the ensuing discussion) bur not right at the moment, since I have to attend to the little Fleischmans right now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Wnt is wrong about more than one thing? Or not talking about you? You seem to have done very little editing at Wiki-PR (exactly 3 edits according to [18]). And I don't see where he said you edited pro-ALEC, so I'm not sure how you inferred that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be indeed better if Wnt stopped casting these vague WP:ASPERSIONS, but I doubt any admin is going to take any actions based on what he actually wrote. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a rather bizarrely non-AGF "translation" DP 00:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok DP, what do you suppose Wnt meant? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to do such a thing - but I sure wouldn't personalize it :-) DP 10:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

When people are writing about you I have a hunch you'd try to understand what they mean, just as I did. If you think my interpretation was a stretch, please do me the dignity of explaining why. AGF isn't the same as ATDMWTW (Assume They Didn't Mean What They Wrote). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems rather plain to see, but...

Evidence that Wnt was writing about me:

• My user page says: "My contributions to Wikipedia do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer."
• Scroll the bottom of my user talk. Two of the last few threads are about Wiki-PR and ALEC.
• In the Wiki-PR thread I declined to get into a dispute about accusations of paid editing.
• I'm by far the biggest contributor to ALEC (especially in recent months).
• Wnt and I have been skirmishing a bit the last couple of days over at Talk:The Day We Fight Back.
• Wnt's acknowledgment: "You aren't the only person I had in mind when I made that comment, anyway. The way you keep materializing - here in response to a conversation with one other editor, at Restore the Fourth right after I reverted a removal by a different editor, and your persistent removals at The Day We Fight Back do make me suspicious. ... I do expect the pro-surveillance side to take some kind of action at some point ..."

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this. To begin with, as you see there, I was trying to talk one editor, then two editors, out of quitting editing Wikipedia. I don't yet know if I have succeeded, or what my odds are now. I only mentioned the possibility of paid resistance because we have all shared the experience of seeing an (overly) enthusiastic discussion of possibilities for blacking out the site or running all articles about surveillance at Jimbo Wales' talk page, only to quite abruptly run into a wall of troubles over running DYKs or even preserving article content. I was trying to reassure Hector that if we were up against hired guns, at least that meant we were costing someone money. I don't think it should be a Wikicrime to say such a thing to another editor as a mere possibility to look out for or consider. I had already given up trying to edit The Day We Fight Back because of DrF's resistance, only to get reverted by him on another page, and then I was being told to avoid speaking, even in the most peripheral terms, about what would happen if someone were being paid. And despite all that, I even indulged him, removing the comment he had complained about right away, basically because it was a careless observation; it was not something I was planning to take to a noticeboard, just a way of saying 'cheer up..." He demanded that I immediately "retract or apologize" - have I not retracted enough something I never even said? Do you think I really owe him an apology?

I should emphasize on the broader issue of advocacy that I have been trying to take a wave of outside enthusiasm and channel it into accepted forms of Wikipedia work that should improve the encyclopedia long term. Moreover, this particular form of "advocacy" is special, first because Wikipedia did participate in the predecessor event spearheaded by the same people against SOPA, and second, because merely editing Wikipedia is a political act in this context. There is another wiki, Project PM, where people tried to do work not that different from that on Wikipedia, though with a less developed set of standards, and in the process of that Barrett Brown was charged with a potential 15 year prison sentence for citing a source. Wikipedia can't really be neutral about something like that. There is a fundamental tension between those who want to make the sum of all human knowledge available to everyone and those who want to make the sum of all human communications available to themselves, while denying you the right to even know they exist (and hitting Barrett Brown with another 20 years or so for trying to look up their home address). So my point all along has been that for this purpose, Wikipedia is by nature an activist organization, just by the routine work of building articles, and so advocacy can be accomplished while acting fully within the rules of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's clear from the stuff said above and the talk page conversations linked that ANI can't help with more or less vague mutual assumptions of bad faith from editors who disagree with each other on content issues. This thread is creating more heat than light, and I don't see any administrative action forthcoming, so I propose it be closed by an uninvolved admin. Demanding an WP:APOLOGY while climbing the WP:REICHSTAG seldom accomplishes anything. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm on my way out the door, so no details (or apologies) to follow, but I'll just chime in to say Dr. Fleischman has a behavior problem. He does seem to have a hand-full of 'friends' he takes a special interest in, often showing up to arguing with them in conversations not related to him, or making a special point of reverting their content. At first I assumed it was just shared subject matter, but he seems to keep showing up at the right time and place to trigger arguments and edit-wars, adding lots of heat and very little light.
I agree with Someone not using his real name-- close the thread and hope that's the end of it. I just chime in to predict you'll see this individual at ANI again in the future. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The editors above appear to be trying to turn this into a broader content and political battle, something it's not. This seems really quite simple to me: Wnt has falsely described me to a third person as a paid editor on the weakest of suspicions. Wnt continues to stand by that description, and despite being proven embarrassingly wrong continues to stand by the assertion with a "nothing to see here, move along." I commend him/her for giving a pep talk to fellow editors, but not for doing so at my expense. We should all be able to have content disputes like the ones described above (really rather minor, I might add) without being subjected to this type of behavior. Perhaps we need Drmies to explain how this is any better than "Update. Im a target of intel boys". In fact it's worse, because Wnt identified the "intel boy." Not express identification, but identification nonetheless. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

DrFleischman once declared his exasperation about another editor's behavior which he described as "Every edit, every source is contested" only to himself engage in very similar behavior "No, we don't have to go with what the news sources think is relevant. We are not a newspaper." on another article, followed by rants on the talk pages of editors who raised an eyebrow [19] followed by ultimatums to another [20]. Wnt casting vague aspersions of COI with which DrFleischman then easily self-identifies for point-scoring purposes is surely not the best way to deal with his behavior, but then WP:BEAR, WP:SPADE, and WP:HYPOCRISY applies too. As another sampling point, DrFleischman immediately chided another editor for expressing his exasperation with him [21] while freely dispensing his own snotty "advice" like "Hurry along, now.","Just please try to keep your punches above the belt" and "stop with the sighs and groans" to those trying to discuss matters with him. If other editors posted a warning to his talk page every time he says something disrespectful toward them, then DrFleischman's talk page would be miles long. But I guess playing the hurt WP:DIVA works well enough around here. Unfortunately, I've seen this tactic successfully used on ANI before. Phrasing the personal attacks in the snotty imperative seems to bypass the civility filter of most admins. DrFleischman's continued insistence on an apology or block of Wnt well after Wnt removed the questionable allusion [22] (this ANI report was filed after DrFleischman declared his impatient dissatisfaction with that solution [23][24]) is just another example of the general WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude exhibited by DrFleischman. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been quietly watching some of the disputes with DrFleischman, albeit not this one with Wnt. There's a good deal of editors needing to work better together, on both "sides", and I'm skeptical that ANI will be the place to resolve that, but I think that the specific accusation of paid COI editing gets waived around way too much. It's a serious accusation if true, and should be pursued at WP:COIN, but just saying it about someone with whom one disagrees about content or POV ends up being, at best, a cheap shot, and at worst, a personal attack. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, if editors such as Wnt really are concerned about me engaging in paid COI editing then the appropriate place to raise this would be COIN. I would encourage them to lay out all of the evidence and we can have an above-board community discussion about it. What happened here was much more cowardly, IMO. I shouldn't have to police Wikipedia's back channels for smear attacks against me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre, petty hatchet job this. I'm surprised that SNUHRN, an editor I've had hardly any interaction with in the past, would stoop to such a low level. He's apparently gone deep into my edit history to dig up what he perceives as "dirt." Thing is, it's not, and even if it was, it has nothing to do with this discussion thread. I guess SNUHRN has some vague issues with my editing style generally. Well if he does, I welcome him to raise them on my user talk, where perhaps we can discuss them like adults. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for the personal attacks. I've only posted examples of your problematic behavior from two threads in which you've been recently involved, both closely related to this incident that you have reported to ANI. The only "digging" is one unrelated post of yours that I did remember because I also post/read DGG's page; that's pretty much the only memory I had of you before this incident. I didn't and don't object to the concerns you had about that editor (the one about which you complained to DGG and which is better to remain unnamed here), but you seem to fail to see that you have adopted a similarly problematic line of behavior in recent times. Two wrongs don't make a right, but Wnt at least knows when to take a step back from the brink by striking/removing questionable remarks. I have yet to see a conciliatory move like that from you. Instead you're asking here for Wnt to be blocked because he isn't kowtowing to you, after you've been very intransigent in your editing and behaved disrespectfully/uncivilly toward a number of editors (diffs above), only to rush to ANI after one of them questioned why you might be doing all this. And you started this ANI complaint after Wnt had already removed the vague allusion to you (chronology with diffs in my previous post). Given all the above, I suspect you'll want to have the last word here too, but unless you level more new/bizarre charges at me, I think I'm done here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how you think I've acted intransigently, disrespectfully, or uncivilly, even with those diffs, so your allusion to WP:BOOMERANG is beyond me, but but we're ranging pretty far off-topic so again, please, let's take this to user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Reggie Watts page admin is not keeping the page up to date.

After trying to update the page for comedian/musician Reggie Watts a bot erases all edits and has his page lacking information for the past 2 years. Please remove the admin in charge of this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.54.116 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that an editor (who is a person) removed a bunch non-notable supposed "filmography" credits, and thankfully so. I do see that a Bot made a single edit here where name of the show had become really screwed up by someone. There is no "admin in charge of this page" - we have requirements about articles regarding living people and a manual of style that the community enforces. If you're having trouble getting your additions to "stick" then you're 'required to discuss them on the article talkpage to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for them DP 10:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing per WP:DISCUSSAFD

Two editors have asked Sue Rangell to withdraw her AFD nomination here [25] and here [26] per WP:DISCUSSAFD.

Instead of withdrawing the nomination, she has asked to have the article (Global gun cultures) deleted, or merged with another article. Lightbreather (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring admin intervention. There is no requirement that someone withdraw a nomination, particularly not on the deman of an IP thats first edit was 3 days ago. The admin that closes the discussion will make their own determination about the consensus of the discussion, sues comment is irrelevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42 and Lightbreather: Deman [sic]? No, I made no demand. I'm not the only IP here. You're an IP too. (Your IP number: http://geoiplookup.wikimedia.org/) Like registered users, unregistered IPs are allowed to "fully participate in deletion discussions, and have been since 2005." No one's comment is irrelevant. ...172.162.77.52 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• RESPONSE

Great...another complete waste of everyone's time...

I wish I could say it was just me, but Lightbreather has been doing this sort of harrassment to many other editors as well. This is the third time she has pulled me into ANI for something frivolous, and she has crossed swords with other editors as well. For those interested, I will outline the history in the text wall below. If not interested, that's fine, the information above speaks for itself.

Balance of SR's response

first edit march 07 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Hard_Day%27s_Night_%28album%29&diff=prev&oldid=118542717 The Lightbreather account is created and 8 edits are made, all to Beatles music related articles Now for the next six years, something odd happens, the account dies. Only four edits are made in all those years, and then suddenly, the lightbreather account blows wide open. August 2013, It's first edits are reverts, and huge ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=prev&oldid=567874306 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=prev&oldid=567874306 Suddenly Lightbreather is a wiki-saavy editor, making avalanches of edits to the FAWB article, and it's first two edits are an edit war with user:Anastrophe and the other editors there, warring over the use of the word "cosmetic". On August 10, the second day of her "return", she makes 18 edits, twice as many as the account has made in it's entire history of 6+years. On Aug 11: 15 edits, on Aug 12: 22 edits, Aug 13: 19 edits, etc. etc. until by September Lightbreather is regularly editing 30 times a day to that single article, fighting with the editors there, mostly edit warring over the word "cosmetic". Ignoring a consensus that was already reached in a RfC about the word prior to Lightbreather's sudden interest in that single article. I should point out that the FAWB artcle was stable prior to all this, and edits to the article were limited to the occasional Gnome edits or to Bots performing various tasks. These edit avalanches were disruptions, and when the editors there complained, Lightbreather began to actively recruit editors and admins to her "cause". This began only ten days after her "return" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RJFJR&diff=prev&oldid=568567171 She starts a second RfC about the word "cosmetic", and continues recruiting/canvassing pro-gun control advocates. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JennKR&diff=prev&oldid=568735788 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tekina_g&diff=prev&oldid=568735962 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndrewRT&diff=prev&oldid=568736235 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Rangell&diff=prev&oldid=568734930 etc., etc., etc. But did you notice the last one? It's me! Yes, Lightbreather and I are on the same side politically speaking, so you might imagine my surprise to see her behaving in this horrible way. I attempted to reach out to her several times, as did many other editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&oldid=570578592 On Sept 4, her RfC is WP:SNOW. It is closed early by an admin and Lightbreather proceeds to go ballistic. Not only does she ignore the consensus, her alone vs. twelve other editors at this point, but she starts the real bullying that has been her trademark since day one. She continues flooding the article with multiple edit avalanches, and the article talk page with "issue floods", and begins making trivial complaints anywhere she can, such as this one, claiming that the capitalization of the article name was "original research": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=571828626 In spite of her vast knowledge of Wikipedia, she repeatedly sprinkles in comments about how "new" she is. It's very strange, and a number of editors notice it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GregJackP&diff=prev&oldid=574523971 This came to a head when she and user:SaltyBoatr began avalanches of edits and reverts that were so bad that the page became unusable and unreadable. Lightbreather escaped a block, but her partner, was not so lucky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#SaltyBoatr.2C_Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban Immediately after, and I mean IMMEDIATELY, Lightbreather brought all of the complaining editors to ANI.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Ownership_issue_on_Federal_assault_weapons_ban_page.3F If you read nothing else of this text wall, read the above link. It says volumes about the Lightbreather account, and not just from me. Her attempt boomeranged on her badly. She is urged repeatedly by admins to stop editing Gun Control articles, and the FAWB article in particular. Although she continues to be combative Gun Control articles in general, she has stepped away from the FAWB article and it has become stable once again. Her habits have not changed. She continues to edit Gun Control articles exclusively, less than 0.5% of her edits are in other areas of Wikipedia. She continues to be combative, etc., often playing the victim. (For example, she complains that I "follow her around" failing to mention that she has invited me to the discussions involved, and of the many gun Control articles she edits, we share only TWO) A few more links: Editors trying to reach out to her: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&diff=prev&oldid=581795845#Friendly_suggestion Lightbreather attempting to get me blocked for the second time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive234#User:Sue_Rangell_reported_by_User:Lightbreather_.28Result:_No_violation.29 Here she is in ARBCOM https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=593912981 Here she is wasting people's time with procedure yet again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sue_Rangell&diff=prev&oldid=593942825 In ANI yet again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Lightbreather_mass_depopulating_cat Again on ARBCOM https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=593830704#Gaijin42_topic-banned_2 Wasting everyone's time at WP:3o https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&oldid=593533298#Active_disagreements I have edited Wikipedia in peace for many years now, and I have never had a problem like this with ANY editor. My behavior is to back away when there are problems, I can provide many examples of this, even with Lightbreather, if anyone wishes to see them. This Lightbreather account has been actively editing for less than a year six months, and has already been to ANI more times than can easily be counted, made rounds of ARBCOM, and battled scores of editors on every Gun Control related article that one may think of. Remember, I have asked her extremely politely a number of times to put Wikipedia ahead of her politics, but I doubt if that is ever going to happen now. There is no doubt in my mind that if something isn't done, you will see Lightbreather here in ANI again and again. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

COUNTER response I'd first like to say that I find Sue's rhetoric uncivil in its choice of words like: "waste," "harassment," " frivolous," "blows wide open," "huge" reverts, "wiki-saavy," "ballistic," and "bullying." She also misrepresents facts, including:

Balance of LB's response

The assault weapons ban (AWB 1994) page was stable prior to my arrival? There was an RfC consensus about the word "cosmetic" in that article prior to my arrival? I have "a vast knowledge of Wikipedia"? But repeatedly claim that I'm new? I recruited editors and admins to my "cause"?

That SaltyBoatr was my "partner"? That I edit gun-control articles exclusively? That I tried to get her (Sue) blocked - again? Wasting editors' time? Re: the AWB 1994 issues from four months ago: I agree with Sue that if you read nothing else re: this issue, do read the ANI ownership discussion from the time, [27] paying particular attention to what I wrote, what she wrote - and the outcome. Of the four editors whom I suspected of ownership issues, Sue was the only one who pushed for me to be banned. [28] One supported the idea (though he and I now have a collegial relationship that I truly appreciate), one opposed the idea, and one recommended mentorship. I had been searching for a mentor (that was part of my thought when I asked for help with the RfC), and found one about this time. When I arrived at AWB 1994 on 9 AUG 2013 to remove the word "cosmetic" from one section, [29] the article's material was duplicated among at least two other articles. [30] Prior to my "arrival," the AWB section of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act had just been redirected/moved to the AWB 1994 article. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] (As I noted in the ANI ownership article, MediaWiki emails of 8 and 9 AUG brought the activity to my attention.) As one might expect, the history pages of gun-politics related articles show that they are regularly and hotly debated. I never found a consensus about the word "cosmetic" - which is why I started the RfC. And, at any rate, the editor with whom I had my original beef agreed mid-November that use of the word is due at least some weight, as seen in the beginning of this discussion. [36] My knowledge of Wikipedia policy and jargon was miniscule in August 2013. By October, because of my ongoing debate with Sue and about a dozen pro-gun editors, it had grown considerably. It is even better now. Don't most editors learn incrementally? And shouldn't we learn faster editing more-controversial pages rather than less-controversial ones? As for claims of being "new," I did it more then - because I was! I still claim it about specific WP tasks with which I've little or no experience. As for recruiting to my cause: I was looking for someone to cool down the situation on the AWB 1994 page. All of my appeals were worded the same as the one to Sue. [37] (I'd been actively editing about one week then and did not yet have a mentor.) SaltyBoatr was not my "partner." It was nice for a time to have one other not pro-gun editor on the article - though he obviously had a rocky past with at least a couple of those guys, which caused problems for other editors and me. (A bunch of good and BRD edits were rolled back after his disruption.) Re: more recent (2014) issues: I edit a lot of gun and gun-politics related articles; I also edit other articles. [38] Yes, I reported Sue for 3RR [39] My mistake was in not understanding how to count a revert as a revert for 3RR purposes. She actually claims to have a personal 1RR rule, which explains in part her single edits that cover lots of reversions, often with misleading edit summaries. [40] [41] Since 3O is between two people, I disagree that it was a waste of everyone's time. I think the push by the editor in question (not Sue) to keep putting Nazi material into gun-politics related articles when behaviors related to such material are before ArbCom right now IS a waste of time. Re: her other complaints, I don't understand what the ArbCom links are supposed to show. I did NOT follow up on the RFC/U I started because my mentor was going to talk with Sue. (That did not go well. [42]) Gaijin42's ANI against me was withdrawn [43] at my behest, and without a boomerang. It was a misunderstanding. Nowhere does Sue mention that she took me to ANI for deleting some of her comments from a talk page (they had accused me of willfully vandalizing pages) and that the admin told her it could boomerang on her (Sue). [44] Nor that she until very recently followed me from page to page shouting that I was an SPA, which an admin warned her to stop doing. [45] Nor that she disrupted the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) article and related articles, insisting that this LIVING scholar is an activist and advocate. [46] If any admin has any question, please ask and I will drop what I'm doing to reply. --Lightbreather (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather, thanks for the the kind words. But just correcting/ clarifying, even then I did not support getting you banned or blocked. I was leaning on you to dial back on aggressive editing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, North. Remember: don't shoot the messenger. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Even if Sue wanted to withdraw the AfD, she couldn't. The consensus is very clearly in the "delete" ballpark. This ANI thread is petty in the extreme, and that's putting it lightly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Luke, you might want to (re) read about Withdrawing a nomination. Also, per WP:CLOSEAFD: "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Lightbreather (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You might want to re-read it. "The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as Speedy Keep #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for "keep", and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion." Sue could change her !vote, but she could not unilaterally end a discussion that others were involved in. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Gaijin is 100% correct (and beat me to saying that). Quite how the AfD was closed as no consensus, I don't know, but I really don't care enough to file a DRV. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin (and Luke), the point you're quoting is a way for the NOMINATOR to withdraw and close it THEMSELVES (if there have been no delete votes) using Speedy Keep #1. They can also withdraw their nomination - even if there are delete votes - and ask an admin to close the discussion. READ Withdrawing a nomination (link given before) directly above How to close an AFD discussion (link also given before). Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

once again, YOU need to read the section YOU linked. " Withdrawing a nomination can save other editors' time by cutting short the discussion, if no-one else has supported the deletion proposal." You are wasting everyone's time and causing drama. This never should have been brought to ANI to begin with, what did you want, admins to force her to change her opinion or else they ban her?Gaijin42 (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin: First, thank you for clarifying. I have made a few edits to "Withdrawing a nomination" [47] and WP:CLOSEAFD [48] based on your replies to me.

As for the second part of your last reply to me - about "wasting everyone's time" and wanting "admins to force [Sue] to change her opinion" - what I wanted was to get a dispute resolution (keep or delete article), based on this:

• 26 JAN 2014 - Sue nominated the article for deletion for reasons WP:PUSH, "creates a content fork," and "fails notability requirements as well, since the content is already going to be merged into a larger article." Later the same day, she clarified "content fork" with WP:REDUNDANTFORK. [49]
• 1 FEB 2014 - Admin Drmies said she thought the article was a valid content fork [50]... and on 2 FEB 2014 Sue agreed. [51]
• 7 FEB 2014 (Twelve (12) days after she opened the nomination) - And here's where it seemed unabashedly disruptive - Sue called for the discussion to be closed and the article deleted (based on votes),[52] and she called the article WP:OR (in an edit with the summary "POV fork" [53]).

To reiterate, I was trying to get decisions from an uninvolved editor (you were involved in the discussion, yes?) and/or admin about the article and about Sue's behavior. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your tweaks to the guideline, it doesn't change the meaning but does make the restriction more clear. None of the items you mention were issues for ANI. The AFD would be (and was) closed when an admin got to it. There is WP:NODEADLINE and the AFD queue appears to be significantly backlogged currently. (Threads like this one take up admin time, which makes that backlog take even longer!) You may disagree with or dislike sue's comments, but she is entitled to her opinion and predictions and her expressing those opinions is not a violation of any policy that would require admin action. Sue called for the discussion to be closed and expressed an opinion about the way that close should go. You did the exact same thing here. This section should probably be archived as the core dispute is resolved. It does not appear that my proposal below is gaining any traction except for TParis, so it is likely to die soon as well. Lets all move on. But please, if you are going to bring people up for violating policy, maybe make sure you have read it carefully. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, Gaijin, the issue I brought up here (top of discussion) was WP:DISCUSSAFD, which says:

"AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD."

It was you and Luke who brought up CLOSEAFD. Lightbreather (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I am also waiting to see if Sue will agree to my counter proposal below. She said, "it would be grossly unfair for me to have to leave [gun related] articles while [Lightbreather] remains," but I looked at her contributions from October 2012 through August 2013 and I see virtually no evidence of her having an interest in gun-related articles prior to my asking for her help about 15 AUG 2013. There were no contributions from her account from Oct. 2011 to Oct. 2012. After that is was primarily - thousands - of reverted edits and AfDs. That's fine; I know there is a need for that kind of administrative work on Wikipedia, but the point is, she showed no interest in gun-related articles until I asked for her help. (You and she will remember that I asked for help because I was one pro-control editor against at least 10 pro-gun editors. Though I did not know the terms at the time, I felt tag-teamed (I'm not saying I was - that's just how it felt) and probably was just suffering a don't-shoot-the-messenger experience.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Lightbreather, drop it. Stop attempting to Wikilawyer your way out of the hole you dug, particularly when what you're saying categorically does not support the existence of this ANI, or your demand for the AfD to be closed; not even slightly. The only constructive thing I've seen from you so far is your amendments/clarifications to the AfD guidelines, which I also agree with. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose IBan

These two cannot get along, and have been here against each other multiple times. I propose a mutual WP:IBAN. The caveat to that is that this is probably effectively a topic ban on guns/gun control for one/both of them as the majority of LB's edits are only to gun control topics, and the topic as a whole is full of contentinos discussion/RFCs that would have them !voteing or commenting on the same threads and proposals, which is generally viewed as an iban violation.

• support as nom Gaijin42 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Sue and I would get along fine if she would just quit following me around and "fixing" my edits. I don't have super-powers and I edit in good faith. Other editors are capable of BRDing with me and don't need Sue's help. (I also resent a little having an editor who is currently before ArbCom, and who only a few days ago brought me to ANI hastily, dismissively collapsing everything we wrote.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I just went and read about IBAN, and since editor "X" (Sue) usually replies uncivilly to editor "Y" (me, Lightbreather), and accuses "Y" of things (vandalism, SPA, PUSH, etc) on numerous pages, and generally undoes Y's edits first and in large, single edits that undo others' work - I would support an IBAN of X/her against Y/me. Lightbreather (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I initiated the arbcom, so its not like I was hauled in front of the magistrate. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, although I respect your right to share your opinion, I'd have preferred the perspective of some other editors and admins first. Lightbreather (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mostly because I am not the only editor she tangles with (See above). Also I am not the one wasting everyone's time here. I've just been pulled into ANI and accused of being disruptive because I am of the opinion that the article (Global gun cultures) should be deleted, or merged. I've learned not to be annoyed by these things when it comes to Lightbreather. My complaint is how these things waste so much everybody's valuable time. Our interractions are WP:CIVIL. We don't use profanity or bait each other or anything like that. Our conversations are polite enough. We simply disagree. We aren't even on opposite sides of the gun issue. An IBAN is a bit premature as we haven't even persued WP:DR (There's been no need) Because of this, I think it would be more helpful if a few editors suggested voluntary behaviors first, or at least made a formal request dispute resolution. I would, as an example, agree to both of us mutually and voluntarily topic banning ourselves from gun related pages. I am happy to do that, as it would be grossly unfair for me to have to leave those articles while she remains. There is plenty of Wikipedia for everyone. An IBAN will not solve the core problem here. Lightbreather will return to ANI again, and again, and again because I am not the only editor she tangles with. I think I've demonstrated that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with some of what you've written, Sue, but rather than get into that, here's a counter proposal. I will voluntarily avoid articles that fall under the WikiProjects you belong to, which appear to be: Computer Security, Sociology, Spam, and Universities, if you will voluntarily avoid articles under WikiProjects that I belong to, which are: Countering Systemic Bias, Firearms, Journalism, Law, and Politics. CSB, Law, and Politics are pretty broad categories, so to be more fair, let's say those articles under CSB, Law, and/or Politics that also overlap with Firearms and/or Journalism. If one of us accidentally edits on another's turf, the other will AGF and give a friendly warning. Lightbreather (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support For these two opposing an interaction ban, they sure do resent each other quite a bit. I've spoken to both, I think, and I have a feeling this is the only way to stop the disruption. They've both been asked to stop and haven't.--v/r - TP 05:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I've seen and interacted much with both and think that they are both fundamentally good people and editors. (not perfect, but who is) They are both are on the same "side" on gun control topics, so that is not an underlying dispute. I think that a full interaction ban would result in one or the other getting excluded from those articles. Could you both agree to just not talk about each other? And if any actions "need" to be taken against the other party, leave that to others to decide and do? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, North. I think we posted on top of each other. See my reply to Gaijin above that begins, "I am also waiting to see...." Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Based on the amount of drama between these two on AN/I I support a IBAN and a topic ban. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark Miller overriding consensus on supposed BLP issue

I am concerned that Mark Miller has modified the text of another editor (that would be me) on a Talk page, citing that the previous text violates WP:BLP and saying that "There is actually no proof" to support the previous text. Miller was carefully told that there was proof to support the accusation and that this therefore was not a BLP violation, not only by myself, but also minutes later by another long-time editor, Ken Arromdee. In light of two opposes to his modifying the original text, and no supports other than his own, Mark Miller went ahead and overruled the consensus forming at the page and modified the text anyway. When Mark Miller was warned about this on his Talk page, he deleted the warning rather than discussing it. He also deleted a discussion about whether evidence (or "proof", as he believes is a semantic differentiator) had been provided in the previous text. I believe that Mark Miller should be counseled about modifying other editors' Talk page commentary, that it is both non-customary and impolite. - Checking the checkers (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

One SPIsingle purpose account, and one long term editor, do not a consensus make. I do not assert that Mark Miller is correct here; this is an interesting and complex problem. However, there is no consensus as we currently define it that he is wrong. You are welcome to seek a discussion and consensus on Jimbo's talk page or here. For the time being, there is none. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

One "SPI"? There was no sockpuppet investigation involved in the story, George. Does SPI stand for something else that I'm not aware of? Regardless, Mark Miller now says "I won't edit war over any editor that should decide to revert", so I have simply reverted him back to my originally-intended prose. - Checking the checkers (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with GWH. Jimbo's talk page is one of the most highly watched pages. When you make accusations about Jimbo based on very little but your own opinion, and you attribute them to intentional malevolence, you can expect to draw attention and perhaps have your posts edited. Jimbo is a living person, this is one of the top 10 websites in the world, and you're slandering that person on it. Now, Jimbo's a big boy and I think Mark Miller should've left the comments alone, but you can't seriously expect us to protect you from him when he's completely justified in what he is doing. Sorry, but no. Either toughen up or don't start the drama.--v/r - TP 05:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And GWH meant "SPA".--v/r - TP 05:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I err brain d'oh yes. I did. No sockpuppetry investigation needed, merely observing single purpose of the account. My apologies for the unintended and unwarranted suggestion/implication. I have struck the goof and clarified above. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, Checking the checkers should voluntarily put it back the way Mark Miller edited it. If policy-based arguments are unconvincing, it should be done out of basic human decency. Stay classy, checker. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent advice, Guy Macon. I have voluntarily restored Miller's questionable modification, even after he said he would not edit war "any editor" who reverted him. I don't know why (above) I am being called a "single purpose account". My contributions to Wikipedia over the past year have been highly diverse. I would appreciate if that epithet were withdrawn. - Checking the checkers (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Having a strong interest in either Keeping Wikipedia Honest or Throwing Around Wild Accusations (take your pick which way you want to describe it) is not the same as being a SPA. That "stay classy" advice I just gave? It applies to calling someone an SPA too. In the name of common decency we should reserve such labels for clear-cut cases. Georgewilliamherbert should voluntarily retract that statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

How much competence can an editor have if they think that it would be worthwhile complaining at ANI about someone reverting parts of their baseless comment that includes "Caught in a lie". Or, is Ctc competent but so engaged in battle that they imagine recruits would be available to right-great-wrongs on Jimbo's talk? Unfortunately the open model of editing means that a lot more nonsense has to be tolerated before action will be taken, but if there is much more unsubstantiated baiting perhaps action will be soon. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am amused by your "baseless comment" and "unsubstantiated" phrasing. It occurs to me that some people on Wikipedia are incapable of reading diffs and connecting dots, even when they're conveniently numbered "1", "2", "3". I could go over the very clearly-based and substantial evidence that the subject was caught in a lie, but what would be the point? Loyal-to-the-Sole-Founder Wikipedians would just deny the evidence all over again. They show no shortage of their ability to do that. - Checking the checkers (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Get a room, you two. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And now, Guy, you need to retract something. Johnuniq's point is valid. "Caught in a lie" is nothing but hot air meant to provoke. It's not an honest question asked by someone interested in the answer. Perhaps we'll find out from Wikipediocrareview who this super checker really is. I respect a bunch of our gadflies, by the way. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahh—that's exactly what I meant to say. For any onlookers, if you find someone "caught in a lie", the way to handle it is to ask a question. You can always add a suggestion that there seems to be a conflict between the events and what someone said, but saying "I caught you in a lie" will never get a good result unless you are not interested in an explanation and merely want to spread muck to attack the person. I would suggest trying another website for the latter because there are quite a lot of intelligent people here who are not impressed by huffing and puffing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yambaram must stop with his bad behaviour

Hi. I have some ongoing dispute with Yambaram and he keeps issuing personal attacks in his answer, directed at my language skills. It doesn't look like he will stop so that's why I am coming here, so that he can finally adhere to both good standard and our policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. This is respectless and just leads to a bad atmoshpere. Yesterday, he wrote this totally unnecessary point in his answer: "4- "you doesn't want too se ... I am interesting of knowing" is terribly poor English, please improve your grammar before making other similar confusing entries on this encyclopedia, as this is just one of many examples. Thanks". I said to him what I think about this and hoped he would stop. Unfortunately, he continued today again: "Anyway, you shouldn't be telling editors anything about grammatical edits they make, as your understanding of it appears to be substandard [31] IRISZOOM: "it just that you doesn't want too se what happened to Arabs"". Note that his claim about "grammatical edits" is not true as I specifically talked about keeping a word, not about someones grammatical skills, because I thought this would be better to show the distinction between one country's view and the world's view (which I later explained to him). Also notice the claim that I am "paranoid".

I am not sure if this is personal, because we have had disputes before, such as two months ago when he restored every comment I had deleted in my talk and issued threats about that I can be blocked for that. When I explained to him that this was allowed, instead of apologizing, he said "Well, to be honest I actually didn't know of that, so please do as you wish now. The fact that you choose to consistently delete posts from your talk page instead of archiving them which is Wikipedia policy's "preferred" option means a lot, as there must be a reason behind it. What are you hiding? You have exposed your POV-pushing editing style everywhere, and other editors have told you about it already. Anyway, I can only guess how long this comment will stay before it gets removed too". I took this to here (ANI) and I was advised to ignore him. In his user talk page, he wrote "Please stop making so much unnecessary noise, Wikipedia admins have much more important stuff to go over than your imaginary "intimidation" and "harassment" made by other users". It just seems that if you have a dispute with him, he will use personal attacks as a weapon. Either way, his bad behaviour must stop.

This case could be of intererest. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, there's obviously a civility problem there and a failure of good faith. Just taking the first example there about the "you doesn't want too se what happened to Arabs" thing. Yes, it's poor English but it's poor English on a talk page. Yambaram could probably do with calming down on that front. It's important that spelling and grammar is enforced in articles but on talk pages, arguing about each other's spelling and minor layout changes and so on is a complete waste of time and energy. Both of you need to apply the principle of charity and try to deal with the substantive differences rather than just pick holes in minor edits. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to IRISZOOM, and an official request for action from administrator

I’m not surprised that all editors have chosen to ignore this post. Ironically, as you selectively picked quotes of me from various disputes we’ve had in the past, you proved what I said to be true. You have to understand that there are millions of heated discussion on Wikipedia talk pages, and if every editor were to complaint about any tiny issue as easily as you do, this WP:ANI noticeboard would have thousands of new posts every hour.

So many of the edits IRISZOOM has made do not comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Mistake made by her are commonly seen, and I was just able to find a few in a matter of a few minutes. IRISZOOM changed a link from "List of Israeli Arab Christians" to "Arab Muslims”, [54], another mistake is where she wrote “and between and between”[55], or here where she deleted factual content, summarizing the reason with a link to a website that doesn't support the the removal of the content. It's important to note that IRISZOOM did not fix any of these later.

Considering the fact that IRISZOOM is not fighting with everyone as often as she has done with past false accusations that were directed at me, one has to ask himself this why this is happening: Is it a coincidence that I am an Israeli Jew while she's a person who has links to some of the most anti-Israel websites in their user page? IRISZOOM’s twisting name is meant to attract readers to enter her page and click on those anti-Israel links, as evidenced by the thousands of daily minor edits she makes[56] just for the purpose of flooding Wikipedia with her user name for people to click on. She also did that in this very strategic article [57] for example - her edits are anti-Israel, which is sad but is as itself fine, however here comes the serious problem: (taken from IRISZOOM's own user page. she moved it to the bottom recently)

Websites you should visit

• mondoweiss.net - Mondoweiss
• normanfinkelstein.com - Norman Finkelstein
• chomsky.info - Noam Chomsky
• ifamericansknew.org - If Americans Knew

This consists of different violations, including WP:USER#Excessive unrelated content, which prohibits "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links), and WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, which states: "user pages...content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise" - and this is exactly what IRISZOOM is doing by spreading her name and attracting reader to click on here user page so they can see these links. Furthermore, as you can see, she literally asks that viewers visit them ("Websites you should visit"). Admins, IRISZOOM must be asked to peacefully remove these links, and if not, you should remove them yourselves. Thanks you, -Yambaram (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, 3 of those terrible sites are written by highly informed American Jews, two with important scholarship to their credit, who happen to disagree with Israel's occupation of another country. They are not 'anti-Israel'. They are again an illegal occupation of foreign territory, which is a respectable position within international law. Though not RS, they are generally highly tuned in to events that are underreported, and therefore assist readers otherwise addicted to mainstream tailored news to see the underside of contemporary issues. Citing them on a user page does not constitute advocacy for what is written there. I don't think anything here is actionable, however, other than that Yambaram should be reminded that disputes should not be personalized. If IRISZOOM feels that these personal attacks are unacceptable, then simply linking all recent examples with diffs, without comment, at the WP:NPA page would be the best way to clarify the issue. Nearly all of the edits I see from IRISZOOM look like close technical corrections on sloppily written pages, while Yamabaram . . .Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, regarding that template, this was a result of me changing from "Muslims Arabs" to "Arab Muslims", then I also wanted to change from "Christian Arabs" from "Arab Christians" and I copied "Arab Muslims", then forgot to change the rest too (the last word, "Christians"). I don't see what I would earn on making this on purpose. I've corrected this now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Lets take a look at his second example. Some of the changes I made:

• Jewish communities currently established in the West Bank and in the Golan Heights, between 1967 and 2006 in the Gaza Strip and between 1967 and 1981 in the Sinai Peninsula
• Jewish communities currently established in the West Bank and in the Golan Heights, between 1967 and 2006 in the Gaza Strip and between 1967 and until 1982 in the Sinai Peninsula
• Jewish communities currently established in the West Bank and in the Golan Heights, between 1967 and 2006 in the Gaza Strip and between 1967 and between 1967 and 1982 in the Sinai Peninsula

One of the changes was that I changed to 1982 because settlements such as Yamit where evacuated then, which I said in the edit summary. The last change was because I wrote that I was "Restoring from when too...". I didn't see "and between 1967" was already there. So you are correct that this is a mistake. I shouldn't added those extra words when there was already those in place. But this doesn't prove something more than I made a mistake. I will correct this now.

Regarding the article about Jordan, I did remove the allegations as they were unfounded, as there is a misunderstanding about Jordan's nationality law. It doesn't "explicitly bars Jews". The law says "(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954" under "The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:". Note that this was not presented as an opinion but as a fact ("Jordan has been accused of practicing apartheid because of the Kingdom's 1954 law prohibiting Jews from living in Jordan") made by a columnist. I was reverted and contrary to your claim, I made other changes. I changed to "allegedly prohibiting Jews from living in Jordan". After that, I inserted what the U.S. State Department says about that.

Regarding my user page. Admins can decide if it's wrong or not. I have directed accusations at you with proof, like yesterday when you made some really troubling POV pushing, where you gave fringe views the same significance as mainstream views. In the end, you realized what you were doing and stopped. And let us don't forget that you direct accusations too, very often in fact.

Yambaram, I really don't know to say to the rest of your text. You called me "paranoid" today. I don't know what that you are writing is then. This is the second time you make allegations of antisemitism. Didn't you learn something from the case you had with Nishidani? I don't care that you are an Israeli Jew, it makes no difference for me what your background have. Three of the websites I link to are written by Jews, maybe the last one too.

The part about my username and my many edits are just... too much. I am sorry but I can't see anyone who agree with this. This is really laughful. Do you think I am spending several hours per day (often more) just to "spread my name and gets the links to anti-Israeli websites"? Most of the time I am spending is just to correct links, formatting etc. I do think my many edits are improvements. But maybe I understand your claim, because you can't find any hate in my edits, or incorrect edits with of course some usual exceptions as shown here because everyone makes mistakes or is wrong sometimes, you now point to the "anti-Israel websites" (which of course is a bad term). This is conspiracy thinking at the best. I took my username, as explained at my user page, from a game engine. I also have one email with that name. Is that also for "spreading my name and getting clicks" etc. or could it be that I just want to have that name because I like it? I am really confused by your remarks.

You know I can bring up your awful edits, like spreading propaganda about Muslims' birth rate in France, you trying to make Palestinians look like interlopers who wasn't ethnic cleansed but, at least many of them, "returned to their home countries". But I won't do it as I don't see the relevance of that. This is about your incivilty, not anything else. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the many small edits and mistakes: on Wikipedia, editors make mistakes. That's because editors are human beings and humans are fallible. If there's routine incompetence and you try in good faith to alert them to the issues in a civil way and they pay no attention, then we might want to consider a block. I'm not seeing that condition being met yet.

As for the links on the user page: I'd suggest the simple answer to that is for IRISZOOM to remove them. If they are unwilling to, Yambaram—or anyone similarly concerned—has the option to take the user page to Miscellany for Deletion and seek wider consensus on deletion of the page itself. But the idea that there's some grand propaganda war going on here because IRISZOOM has an all-caps username and makes a lot of edits to effectively spam the history page so as to seduce people reading the history page into clicking on their user page so that they can then get pro-Palestinian propaganda in the form of links to four websites... sorry, that's silly.

Beyond telling the both of you to stop bickering and to implore you to try and be civil to one another, I'm not exactly sure what admin action is required here. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have explained where my user name comes from but it looks like Yambaram didn't see that. Otherwise he would not have thought I am a woman ("her"), as "Iris" makes it sound (pretty common mistake in my email conversations). So I advice him to read one time more and use common sense before drawing up conspiracy theories.

I have removed that from my user page now. I just want to add that those websites have only been there for a month. I had an empty user page for several years before that. I have done much copyediting for much longer than that. So the silly claim makes even less sense. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I Just read all the responses. Nishidani you're intellectual enough to know that these four websites/people aren't just "against illegal occupation of foreign territory" - each one of them represents either strong radical-leftist, anti-Israel, or extreme liberal views. This is unacceptable, just like I would never put a link to this anti-Islam website on my user page and write "Website you should visit", even if I really felt the need to advance a point.

Tom Morris, thanks for your helpful reply and advice. With all due respect, I think that what you called "silly" is actually the truth. You surely agree with me that whatever a Wikipedia user puts on their user page is what they want visitors to see. It's understandable, and it's what IRISZOOM did, but in his/her case, it's against Wikipedia's rules. But let's not get into this. Anyway, just before I was going to go to WP:MFD, IRISZOOM wisely removed these websites. A smart move, I guess.

IRISZOOM, as I'm writing this you keep changing the content of your response and it's really confusing and misleading as it is hard to follow. I'll respond briefly. You can't see anyone who agrees with me? You have been reverted dozens of times and other editors told you similar things, so this statement is factually wrong. Also, from 2009 until late-2013 you were barely active and made as little as about 400 edits on English Wikipedia, so saying that your user page was empty for a few years is again a half-truth. Conspiracy theories? Propaganda about Muslims and Palestinians? Unlike you(this is just one example of many), I always cite any sentence I add whenever it could be disputed. And did you just say that I made antisemitic allegations against you?! This is an absolute lie and you should be sanctioned per WP:BOOMERANG. -Yambaram (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained the article about the situation in Jordan. The claim was not true and presented as a fact. I was reverted and then I kept it but clarified and added a source about the situation. None of your examples show anything unusual, as others have explained to you here. And please to don't try to misinform readers. You have made many unwarranted changes such as yesterday in the article about Israelis and the fact that you may cite someone, doesn't mean that it's acceptable, like you for example did in some edits about Palestinians.

There will always be disputes about content. But no one has agreed with the silly claim about why I am editing. You write "With all due respect, I think that what you called "silly" is actually the truth. You surely agree with me that whatever a Wikipedia user puts on their user page is what they want visitors to see". You are missing the point. It was not about which pages I had in my user page itself but your claim I wanted to promote it by making many edits. And please read again what I wrote. I said my user page, with a link to it, was empty for several years. Or actually, it said "IRIZOOM". I am not talking about the edits. So your claim about why I am making so many edits makes even more less sense. It's bad that you made this claim from the beginning and it's worse than you keep pushing this idea. You are now trying to leave this by saying "But let's not get into this". No, if you make a serious accusation, and in the very same time as you write this, keeps pushing the same claim about why I am editing, expect me to want you to retract it.

Why do you bring up that you are an Israeli Jew if that's not what you mean? "Considering the fact that IRISZOOM is not fighting with everyone as often as she has done with past false accusations that were directed at me, one has to ask himself this why this is happening: Is it a coincidence that I am an Israeli Jew while she's a person who has links to some of the most anti-Israel websites in their user page?". Why didn't you only write "Israeli"? Not that this would be much better. Don't you see any problem with the claim you are making here? This is a serious accusation by you, don't change it to my being my fault. I see why you are changing it to be about me but lets be honest. You made personal attacks, directed at my language skills, and now it's has gotten worse with the two claims you have made here. You have to understand why I react and not just ignore it or try to make it irrelevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, to imply as Yambaram is insinuating here, 'is it a coincidence that I am an Israel Jew?', i.e. that we have a case of anti-semitism here is worthy of administrative note. Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, my edits on Wikipedia are good and productive, and I'm rarely told otherwise. If there are specific edits you think I should correct, tell me so in the proper place, unlike what you did here, and I'll gladly discuss the issue. I said "but let's not get into this" because as a life principle I tend to refrain from saying things that will probably not benefit either side of the argument, but since you׳re continuing your insistence I'll respond in details now.

I wrote that your account was barely active for about four years prior to late-2013 (correction - early 2013 so it's again a half truth to say that your user page was empty for years. You made so few edits every year so this may be why you didn't bother to change your user page space. And no, I'm not "missing the point". The serious issue is the actual websites you promoted on you user page while asking visitors to click on them, and this is what I focused my explanation on as I examined which Wikipedia policies you're violating by having them. The other stuff about your edits was just side notes for whoever it may concern to take into consideration. And no, if you haven't noticed, you have made many more accusations than I have in this entry, and far less relevant and justified ones, indeed.

Nishidani, I'm not going to let you twist my words this time, as you did in "that case" IRISZOOM keeps referring to. Thankfully, as you got more people involved in that discussion by mentioning them, the statements you made about everyone were slowly debunked by those editors. So this is to both of you:

When I asked 'is it because I am an Israeli Jew while IRISZOOM has links to anti-Israel websites?' I was implying that your Wikipedia account/activity is anti-Israel, and so I raised the possibility that I may have been targeted by you because I'm Israeli. I'm surprised it's so hard for you to understand this as it's quite simple. And I asked it, as opposed to accused. I wrote Israeli Jew because (and you know this very well) there are Palestinian Israelis (also known as Arab Israelis), which you IRISZOOM are very supportive of, as your edits indicate. So if I were an Israeli Muslim/Palestinian, my statement just wouldn't make sense as it would contradict the reality, so I clarified it by saying Israeli Jew. And even if I were to say "is it because I'm a Jew?", it still wouldn't be an accusation, which for various reasons you claim it to be. It is a question that I'm entitled to ask just like you can. In case you guys don't know what the word "accusation" really means, it is (according to Google) "a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong", which is not what I was doing when I asked our of concern why I was being targeted while IRISZOOM has had many disputes with different editors in the past.

You both are just harming you reputation the more and more here, and your false and offensive interpretations must be enforced by administrators. -Yambaram (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you want to say with that. This is not about our content disputes (which is normal to have), and I yes, I have explained to you several times (both in talk pages and in edits) regarding your edits, and I surely think my edits are also good and productive, but this is not about that. It's about your bad behaviour, which unfortunately, with this claim that you have made here, is much worse than I thougt your remarks about my language skills were.

I don't know why you are keep saying that's "it's a half truth" and that you didn't miss the point. I will explain again.

As for the links on the user page: I'd suggest the simple answer to that is for IRISZOOM to remove them. If they are unwilling to, Yambaram—or anyone similarly concerned—has the option to take the user page to Miscellany for Deletion and seek wider consensus on deletion of the page itself. But the idea that there's some grand propaganda war going on here because IRISZOOM has an all-caps username and makes a lot of edits to effectively spam the history page so as to seduce people reading the history page into clicking on their user page so that they can then get pro-Palestinian propaganda in the form of links to four websites... sorry, that's silly. - what Tom Morris wrote

I have removed that from my user page now. I just want to add that those websites have only been there for a month. I had an empty user page for several years before that. I have done much copyediting for much longer than that. So the silly claim makes even less sense. - what I said to him

With all due respect, I think that what you called "silly" is actually the truth. You surely agree with me that whatever a Wikipedia user puts on their user page is what they want visitors to see. It's understandable, and it's what IRISZOOM did, but in his/her case, it's against Wikipedia's rules.

Also, from 2009 until late-2013 you were barely active and made as little as about 400 edits on English Wikipedia, so saying that your user page was empty for a few years is again a half-truth. - what you wrote

What I explained to you in my last reply to you was that you said that the "silly" thing is "actually the truth" because "whatever a Wikipedia user puts on their user page is what they want visitors to see. It's understandable, and it's what IRISZOOM did". I said "It was not about which pages I had in my user page itself but your claim I wanted to promote it by making many edits". So you are now only talking about why I had that user page but ignoring your silly theory which my name and user page was a part of, namely that my "twisting name is meant to attract readers to enter her page and click on those anti-Israel links, as evidenced by the thousands of daily minor edits she makes[3] just for the purpose of flooding Wikipedia with her user name for people to click on". In response to this, I also said (with a link to it) that this claim makes less sense also because my user page was empty/only contained "IRISZOOM" for several years until a month ago. You respond by saying Also, from 2009 until late-2013 you were barely active and made as little as about 400 edits on English Wikipedia, so saying that your user page was empty for a few years is again a half-truth. As I said, I am talking about my user page (not my edits), and the fact that I have done much copyediting for much longer than that makes your claim even more less sense. This is why your theory is getting debunked. But if you still want to believe it, no one can stop you.

I think it's clear what you mean and they are atleast insinuations to anyone. Stop trying to hide behind linguistics and that you wrote "Israeli Jew" just because there are Palestinians who are Israelis. "Considering the fact that IRISZOOM is not fighting with everyone as often as she has done with past false accusations that were directed at me, one has to ask himself this why this is happening: Is it a coincidence that I am an Israeli Jew while she's a person who has links to some of the most anti-Israel websites in their user page?" is a very offensive remark. Obviously you don't agree with the interpretation so we will se what others say. The fact that you have made a similiar claim against another user (Nishidani) is also relevant. And no, it is not a "question that I'm entitled to ask just like you can". Even if what you say above is true, namely that you mean that I may have something against Israelis, it's still offensive. If you would have acknowledged that your remark was wrong, I would have accepted it, but you have made the opposite. Let us not play this "It's only questions"-game. It's not acceptable to have something against other nationalities. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what nationality did I have something against? None. You just wrongly accused me of having "something against other nationalities". Yet another serious Wikipedia rule you broke and should be sanctioned for. And with all these long texts you copy-pasted and all these blatant remarks, it's clear that you're just trying to make me look as bad as possible in the eyes of the uninformed reader. You keep referring to Nishidani (a user that was/claimed he was being called an 'antisemite' many times in the past, like here and here, to name a few), and this is becoming pathetic. You're telling me to stay on topic, while you do the opposite.

And yes, I still believe this theory, which you haven't debunked simply because in this case it is impossible to debunk what one thinks. I cannot read your mind and therefore my opinion will probably not change. Because out of millions of English Wikipedia users, IRISZOOM is the only one who meets the following description: Has an all-caps username and makes hundreds of daily minor edits which obviously gets many visitors to click on it, while IRISZOOM'S views are clearly demonstrated in his/her editing and in those external links to websites for promotion, which clearly have no place on Wikipedia (an interesting side note is that the country you come from is one of least Israel-friendly ones in the world). But this specific issue was solved as you removed those links (it's better than having the whole user page removed via WP:MFD) - I do not interfere with anything as long as you/anyone else follow Wikipedia's guidelines. -Yambaram (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

First we start with your theory. Your argument about my user page and the part about what was considered silly was the thing I wanted to clarify as you misunderstood it. If you want to believe your theory, it's silly but you are allowed to do so.

I don't see what you want to say with those links. Yes, the fact that you wrote that to Nishidani is relevant. You got warned for this.

I am tired of you misreading thing after thing. I did not "accuse" you of having "something against other nationalities". Read it again. I was referring to you who said that you meant "Israelis" and I responded that this wasn't acceptable either, as it's not okay to have something against other nationalities. -IRISZOOM (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Khabboos

N.B. This was originally posted at WP:AN, but since this is much more of an incident, I've moved it here. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User Khabboos has continuously and knowingly violated and attempted to violate Wikipedias stance on neutral point of view and rule on editing originally on four pages (Talk:Karachi, Talk:Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush). He has already been warned by other editors that this is not allowed. Even though knowing this he continued to request to have mine and Inayity edits reverted on the Sindhi people page. Following his recent edits on the Hindu Kush (here and here) with his deliberate disruptive editing of a quote in a attempt to push his "agenda" I had personally come to inform him that he is severely risking being banned.

Despite being clearly informed of this, he completely ignored my message and want on his normal ways on the Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush pages. He would again violate NPOV on Hindu Kush, restoring his edit after being told its not allowed and again even after being told by 3 different editors that his edits are not neutral and unsourced. He also claims that the sources provided say "flee" instead of "migrated" but on the contrary both sources say "migrated".

Other disruptive edits include:

Claiming to have "found a good reference" for the Jayapala page even though none of his edits related to the source provided.

Using original research on the Hinduism in Pakistan page (here) which is also not allowed on Wikipedia.

Using original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). The references used are the same as the ones used on Hinduism in Pakistan.

Adding a reference to the Sindhi page (here) to citation a needed. Though he provided a source it does not mention the numbers given on the article. I have already and several times before have told him to make sure his edits are supported by the source he has given and to make sure the source he gives is relates to the citation needed.

Providing a "dead" "sourced" link to the Hinduism page (here); which called Hinduism "a way of life" which would also conflict with the fourth and fifth word in the first sentence of the first article which are "a religion". AcidSnow (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You tried WT:INB, or WP:DRN? Noteswork (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Noteswork, please do not give misleading advice on noticeboards - WT:INB is not an appropriate place to raise a contributor's behavioural issues, dispute resolution is only of use where there is an active discussion, and page protection is unlikely to solve a problem spread over multiple articles. I've not looked at the evidence in detail, but from Acidsnow's comments, it appears that admin action may be needed - in which case, this page is exactly the place to raise the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, editing your posts long after initial posting [58] is confusing and unhelpful too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm new here, I have been taking advice from friends who are active here. They tell me that I can ask for a senior to tutor me, that I can write anything on the Talk page and it is counted only as a discussion, not an edit. I also asked questions at the Tea House. I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it. Please tell me how to proceed.—Khabboos (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard of this, who said it? I have warned you before that you were risking being banned if you continued, yet you ignored my message and continued. Anyways, even if it was true it does not mean much. As for the talk pages I said "attempted" since you were warned that these break NPOV and were clearly showing "to be advocating your point of view".

*Sigh*, once again you have added original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). This also has been said by another user too (here and here). Why are you still doing this when me and other editors can see your edits? How many times must you be told to stop before you stop? AcidSnow (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Some links that may be helpful. This is only for the Hindu Kush portion, which I happened to see at the teahouse (I don't know anything about the rest of the articles). Here is the teahouse thread, WP:Teahouse/Questions#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FHindu_Kush. Here is my request for some savvy folks to take a peek, if they could, User_talk:Drmies#Talk:Hindu_Kush. Here is the article-talkpage thread, Talk:Hindu_Kush#Possible_edit_war. Note that dispute over the "literal translation" sentences in mainspace (albeit not between AcidSnow and Khabboos I hope! :-) has been going on since 2005, see Talk:Hindu_Kush#Miscellaneous. Khabboos claims to be getting information straight from the 1957 national geographic article, if I understand the article-talkpage conversation. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, you asked a question at the Teahouse on January 27, but a review of that discussion does not show any such advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already asked him who said it and to come back to the ANI on his talk page, but he has yet to do so. Hopefully he stops ignoring it so we can end these types of edits. This user appears to have a serious problem with Islam (see his most recent talk page discussion). Not just those but he has also continued to lie about his references then post them all over Hinduism in Pakistan (here and here) and on the Umayyad Caliphate page (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I had made some edits to the article Hinduism in Pakistan that can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=593445517&oldid=593438770, but User:AcidSnow has formatted it, removing the sentences that say there were forced conversions back in time, that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005 etc (the references say that). Please tell me what to do about it.—Khabboos (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you just ignoring all of my messages especially the edit summaries and the talk page I have left? None of the sources you provided support your POV. Are you simply Google searching books on the history of Pakistan without even reading them? As for the mob I have said this twice before it was a response to an alleged Quran desecration which you continued to ignore in your edits. It was not out of hate against Hindus but rather and attack out of anger. You have also ignored the questions previously asked you, but raised a question on what to do with my edits that have broken no rules. AcidSnow (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal

I am not sure if I am allowed to do this as I am not an administrator, but this appears to be the only solution to deal/stop with this user. Following his countless POV edits, disruptive edits, use of original research, lies, ignoring messages when told to stop and to rejoin the discussion (see my other comments above) I have request to have this user to be blocked form editing on Wikipedia. AcidSnow (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a strong claim, and needs substantiation; please post specific diffs to show that the user has lied. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He has and very clear ones would when he said, "I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it." (he is referring to the Teahouse and I am not the only one that called him out on it). He has also claimed to "have found a good reference". AcidSnow (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You said that the user has lied.

Please can you show me where he has lied. Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For the rule he stated, theres nothing at either Teahouse discussion that says anything like it (see here and here for each one). There's also no other discussion about it in his contribute history (had to make sure so I don't make false accusations). As for the "good reference", none of the edits he made are related to it, so he lied about that too. AcidSnow (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so, you're talking about Khabboos (talk · contribs), right? Got it.

Next, can you show some specific diffs that require admins? Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you mean by that and what you are? You know a lot about Wikipedia's policies and have made many edits so far in your first day. They range from articles edits to blocking discussion; these are not normal for a first time editor. Have you been a user before?

Anyways, I have already listed all the things he has done up above. This discussion needs administrator intervention since this user could careless what others say (has been warned countess times). I was also guided here by a helpful user. Another user who has also glanced at this section also see it as such. Since you appear to have missed the issues stated about this user please reread this discussion.

EDIT: It appears that you have been a user here before since you claim to have made "over 100,000 edits". But than again "everybody lies". AcidSnow (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. I therefore request the administartor/s to block AcidSnow instead of me.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your going to try to block me for going against your NON NPOV? You do realize since you keep on failing to mention that it was an anger attack not a hate crime that you are once again pushing your POV (which you have been told countless times that it not allowed? This is not breaking a rules if I remove it since it misrepresents the source. Also its not an edit war if you revert it once (once again I have not broken any rule). Dispet knowing this you continue to readded it (here) I removed it because they are not sourced being Sindhi. You know many Turks have the name Yusuf which is an Arab name, but they are not Arab? So the use of the surname does not help.

You also added an unsourced comment to the Babri Mosque (here) about Pakistani Hindus which has nothing to do with the Mosque. This called Original Research, find a source next time (really, I still need to tell you this?). You also added another reference to Temples to the lead that have nothing to do with the mosque once again (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you also tell us who told you the one week rule? You have already been asked twice, so you might as well as do it now. AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My offline wikipedia friends told me that if an edit goes unchallenged for more than a week and it is backed up by references that say the same thing, it is acceptable.—Khabboos (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Name? "unchallenged" and "backed up by references", odd, you did not say these before. Anyways this has nothing to do with the issues you have caused as they were challenged and not backed up. This also has been a continues problem too. AcidSnow (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear admins, In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', which said the same thing, but AcidSnow is continuously removing it, so please tell me what to do.—Khabboos (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are constantly saying this? I have given you 3 legitimate reasons why its not needed, yet you keep on asking for Admin assistance? You are wasting time.

AcidSnow Could you explain to me why the sentence "Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera" is not relevant as it appears to be sourced? Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 00:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You are now forumshoping: (request for medition, asking at ANI which you did more than once, making your own section at ANI, asking Smsarmad, and at the teahouse). AcidSnow (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your a 100% right Flat Out that it "appears" to be sourced and if that was the only thing the source said or that it was a "hate crime" or anything related to it than it would also be ok to add. However, the article goes on to say they were out to "avenge an alleged desecration of Holy Quran by a man here". As you can see it was done out of anger and nothing to do with persecution. It is also a miss representation of the source as the section it's being used is discussing persecution of Hindus. This is just another one of his attempts to push his POV. Those were the three reasons: nothing to do with persecution, miss representation of the article, and POV pushing. AcidSnow (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, AcidSnow. It's important to remember that not everyone has the benefit of all of the details of the disagreement and that you will need to be specific both here and at arbitration. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, Flat Out I have edited my response at the Request for mediation.. Could you close it now since it's now pointless to have it open? Also do I continue too wait for assistance? AcidSnow (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I cant close. I will review your additions at Arbitration - Good luck Flat Out let's discuss it 03:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you anyways. AcidSnow (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I restored this discussion because it is still ongoing. If it was removed due to lack of discussion, it is because Khabboos has staled it even though I have asked him to return to it. This is not about a "dispute", but rather his inappropriate behavior. All Khabboos is trying to do is shift the discussion from his inappropriate behavior to this "dispute" he is "trying" to "resolve". In fact he would rather see me banned. When he responded to me, as you can see here, he has no desire to discuss his continues inappropriate behavior and even denied the discussions existence. AcidSnow (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There can be no mediation because: (1) "the mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors" (see Wikipedia:Mediation); and (2) because User:AcidSnow has not agreed to mediation. We need to discuss the behaviour issues.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Behaviour

AcidSnow has said that Khabboos provides citations that did not contain the information that they were claimed as a source for. I have looked at three of the citations that AcidSnow has complained about, and his/her complaints are justified.[59][60][61] Khabboos, do you have an explanation for these?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are also cases where Khabboos has provided a genuine citation, but the citation only supports part of what he/she has added. This example happened today.[62] The citation is completely accurate for the second sentence, but does not support the first sentence.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Toddy1, thank you for trying to keep this discussion going, but I doubt he well bother responding. As I have asked him to return, but he would ignored me and denied the discussions existence. AcidSnow (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Yatzhek

This is a complaint about User:Yatzhek

The edit conflict that has caused the personal attacks and insults is [63].

I noticed on the article Black people in Nazi Germany a slight error, the mention of ethnic Poles as an inferior race and as "racially non-Aryan" is incorrect and the source given does not mention this. I then removed this and have found myself having to revert this a couple of times now. Before doing this I created a new section on the users talk page which can be found [64] which was my attempt at explaining why I removed the text that the user has kept reverting back into the article along with evidence. The replies are astonishing and are full of personal attacks whilst warning the user about this. I then created the discussion on the actual article itself which can be found [65] and again there is no cooperation with the user but rather insult after insult and personal attacks. One personal attack which really made me angry was "How dare you discredit the Polish suffering during the Shoa by saying that Poles were treated as Aryans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims - Hope you read the whole of my message and educate yourself. Thank you". The user then decided to "contribute" towards a discussion held a little while ago which can be found [66] and this was the final straw, I received this at the end of the rant "You are from England, so you are either anti-Polish racist and hate the fact that Poles suffered racial persecution in their own country, or you are Polish and strongly want to be a full-fledged member of the Stormfront forum. That's all. Thank you." This was the final hurdle and one step too far, the user knows nothing about me (I might even be Polish myself?) it is not the users concern what I am as we are all just editors on Wikipedia and is now also accusing me of being Polish and wanting to be a member of the Stormfront forum.

There is no cooperation with the user despite the many attempts, the user even created a section on my talk page and just copy and pasted the same text of one of the responses on their own talk page. I am not getting anywhere with the user and it is now just becoming too personal for my liking simply because I am refuting and removing the text given that the user wants in the article.

I am not happy with these personal attacks and constant reverting without actually giving an explanation, the history of the reverts can be found [67] and the user clearly is not reading my reasons, such as:

"I've already created a section on your talkpage regarding this, Poles were 'Aryan' not "racially non-Aryan", the source given does not state that and it is irrelevant to the article anyways. Please see your talk page before rv again."

Users reply:

"Undid revision 594494517 by Windows66 (talk) 2 million Poles were victims of Holocaust. They were not only discriminated but killed"

I have warned the user a few times and the user has chosen to ignore me, I want this resolved please as the personal attacks were one step too far. Can you please help?--Windows66 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And the personal attacks continue...

"Are completely out of your mind? Why are you saying this "Aryan, Aryan, Aryan" thing all the time? This was not the case and you push this topic all the way! I had enough! You deleted the information about ethnic Poles because you dont understand the article Black people in Nazi Germany - ethnic Poles were mention as people who suffered SIMILAR persecutions... or should I say - Blacks suffered similar persecutions to Poles. You are an anti-Polish pseron, hating on this nation, can't stand the fact that Poles were the victims and I think, if you had such power, you would delete all the articles about the Polish suffering and victims of the Would War II. The question is - why? Racism? Antipolonism?"[68]--Windows66 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You hate the Poles. Admit it. Be a man and admit it. Why everything you do on Wikipedia is hunting the articles about Polish suffering during the WWII and deleting the information about them? Why don't you delete Gypsies? Didn't you know that Gypsies were higher on the "racial ladder" than Poles accoring do many Hitler's cooperators? Haven't you heard about 2 million non-Jewish ethnic Poles killed in the German Nazi death camps? You are making a lot of conflict around yourself. Be a human, not an anti-Polish monster. True, Germans considered Poles half-Aryan, but that doesn't change the fact Poles were the second largest victim group of Nazism, right after Jews. you JUST CAN'T DENY IT. don't you dare deny it ! Yatzhek (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks that Yatzhek has difficulties understanding some basic policies of Wikipedia (WP:CIVIL). On the other hand, Windows66 himself is doing exactly what Yatzhek is doing: accusations and personal attacks on other contributors[69], [70] edit warring[71],[72] and copying and pasting material from one articles talk page to another,[73], [74] -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You are showing yourself to attack me even more through WP:PA right on the page that I have reported you on.

I do not hate Poles. I have nothing to admit. I have not removed any text about Poles (Jewish Poles or ethnic Poles) suffering during WWII by the Nazis. I never deleted the Gypsies because they were persecuted as an "inferior race" according to the Nuremberg Laws, this was not the case with ethnic Poles. Gypsies and their Aryan purity can be seen on the article Porajmos#Aryan_racial_purity, Gypsies were classified as non-Aryan; they were seen as originally Aryan but became too racially mixed and were subject to losing their German citizenship, forbid from having sexual relations and marriages with Aryans, again this was not the case with the Poles. Where did I deny that Poles were not victims of Nazism? Poles were seen as fully-Aryan not just half-Aryan (plenty of evidence for this). You seem incapable of handling the truth and because of this have continued to personally attack, attack and attack me for simply removing un-sourced content. Who spoke about denying anything??? Who spoke about denying crimes against Poles??? NOBODY. What I removed was that ethnic Poles were viewed as an "inferior race", its not true. Second removal they were "racially non-Aryan", again not true.

You claimed on another users talk page (found here) that you struggle with English yet you seem enough to constantly insult me to the level of calling me "racist".

I've tried to co-operate with you, for example after your rant without any sources I asked for you to produce the responses were:

[75] - me asking for evidence.

[76] - your rant.

You won't answer anything I say but then full out call me racist and anti-Polish, then the more severe personal attacks came...--Windows66 (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tobby72 - The reason it was removed from the Nazism article was already mentioned, the Slavs is already mentioned and Poles are Slavs so there is no need in a separate insertion of the same text when Slavs covers it.

I've not personally attacked anyone, I've not called anyone a racist, a white supremacist, etc etc. I've not personally attacked you I first even said it might be a coincidence, especially now since you're following it up on here.

May I ask why you are even bothering to reply on this when it is really to do with me, Yahzhek and administrators?--Windows66 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Closely related to this incident: I am calling for someone with historical interest in Nazism to review the onging dispute on the Talk page to this article regarding a serious WP:UNDUE issue.

Windows66 has repeatedly removed referenced information from the Nazism article[77] and used this quotes[78] to support his assertion that "Poles and other non-Germans were not going to be treat like second-class citizens because they were to be equally citizens of the German state just as much as Germans..." seems to me to be historical revisionism of the worst kind (I can quote from it: "... Of course, before Nuremberg, that is still in the war, allied "aces information warfare" periodically recurring thoughts about wanting to "fascists" exterminate millions of people, but then it was just propaganda, often very clumsy. ... By inventing such posts Jewish writer performs a social order, fomenting bestial hatred of everything German, and encouraging physically destroy German women and children. ... the Slavic peoples, and, of course, the Russian people were officially recognized in the Reich racially related, fraternal ethnic groups. What is the meaning to destroy their brethren - here's a simple question that we address Kovalev, Black and other conscious and unconscious falsifiers of history.").

Has Wikipedia been hijacked by anti-semitic revisionist authors like Artur Silgailis and David Irving? Thanks. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It was already mentioned why it was undone and removed, it is already discovered in the paragraph regarding Slavs, Poles are Slavs.--Windows66 (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have left User:Yatzhek a warning for accusing Windows66 of Holocaust denial. Regardless of the content dispute, his comment above clearly aggravates the situation. Shii (tock) 16:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tobby72, I have not put any anti-semitic or revisionist stuff into any talk pages but rather copied and pasted from a Russian website that some historians and authors deny any racial hatred towards Slavs existed and show evidence that Slavs were recognized also as Aryans.

Thank you Shii. I have tried numerous of times to cooperate with this user but to no avail. The user yesterday said he/she would not edit the Black people in Nazi Germany article anymore and that I have "won", see here, yet I logged on this morning and have found several new tedious edits by this user including on the article he/she said their would not edit again on. See [79] for the edit on the Black people in Nazi Germany article. Other edits include [80] and [81] [82] [83] which was challenged and ignored as "nonsense" by the first reply from another user, see [84].--Windows66 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Either the same user or a sock puppet can this please be checked out, see [85] which is a load of nonsense because I have no undone any information on the Anti-Polish sentiment article which can be shown here.--Windows66 (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And another attack on me here, can this please be followed up, thank you.--Windows66 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

New class of editors?

Perhaps someone is teaching a class and got a bunch of students to sign up in last few days; or maybe someone has a bunch of socks? Anyway, these guys are editing a lot of the same articles the last few days, and making a lot to clean up after:

• JaunJimenez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DaveeBlahBlah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BatManFascination (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 808caTFish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SuleeeOuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Among the articles edited by at least a couple of them in the last week are Ocean, Salinity, JFET, MOSFET, Transistor, Diode, Zener diode, Microphone, Transformer.

Is there any good way to bulk notify them or help them be less of a problem in their contributions? Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Bulk"? Not that I know of. Try individually, or try to figure out who the teacher might be (you can ask them). Drmies (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits [86][87][88] by User:DaveeBlahBlah include copyvio from the same sources that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jwratner1 was fond of plagiarizing. The areas of electronic components and ocean/salinity that are the focus of this pool of editors are also the area of that sock-drawer. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean this 2006 book? I'm not seeing the copyvio in the 2nd one; do you have an easy way to find? And the third appears to be nothing, and a different account. Dicklyon (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes (well, I was seeing the 2011 edition of it). "an inductor with an iron core has a greater inductance than an inductor with an air core." matches, and many of the surrounding phrases sentences do too (albeit with different conjunctions). See [89] for a "very close not exact" match as well (but close-paraphrase is still headed towards WP copyvio land especially if not cited). For #3, I meant [90], which is again from that same published work. DMacks (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

All Special:ListFiles/DaveeBlahBlah also appear to be cut'n'pasted from that book. Although there may be some "intrinsic non-protectable facts" in the technical diagrams, WP still requires citation when taking from a source (and the source does not assert free licensing) rather than claiming "own work". Uploading images from various published texts is also part of Jwratner1's pattern. DMacks (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit [91] by User:JaunJimenez is copyvio (can't remember if it's a source the SPI used). DMacks (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If you know it's a copyvio, could you please revert it, saying so? Dicklyon (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Some already had been (for content/sourcing reasons), got distracted before checking the others' history:( I just did some. DMacks (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note User talk:808caTFish. I believe in good faith and those articles need help. Maybe CU would be helpful for the suspected sock, but let's try and be optimistic and helpful first, OK? Drmies (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they need help. Dicklyon (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Holds not being respected at WP:DYKN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• At Did You Know nominations, users are extended the courtesy of having nominations 'held' until a specific date, Although consensus may or may not emerge for them to actually be scheduled on that date, we preserve the possibility. We are currently respecting the holds on items for Valentines Day, "The Investiture of new cardinals appointed by Pope Francis" (Feb 22), the 2014 Football League Cup Final (March 2), and Internatioanl Women's Day (March 8)

• Gobonobo nominated Oleg Syromolotov with a requested hold date of Feb 11. Admin Resolute approved it and moved it into the holding area for that date.
• Orlady is attempting to run this item immediately, ahead of schedule, ignoring the hold request over the objections of others, despite knowing this is a controversial move.
• To the best I can tell, no attempt was even made notify Gobonobo and alert him to the fact that his hold request was going to be ignored, out of process and contrary to status quo expectations.

I do not feel this is appropriate, and think it shows a distinct lack of respect for Gobonobo. I would request Orlady unschedule the item and respect the validly-stated hold request from Gobonobo Too late now, it's on main. The past is the past, but I would request Orlady clarify that in future they will not, as a rule, run held material ahead of schedule, as was done here.--HectorMoffet (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

My perspective is that Hector Moffet's actions at WP:DYK have been disruptive. With less than an hour to go before the next scheduled update to the main page, I checked the status of the queue and found that there were no admin-approved updates. Furthermore, the next two unapproved prep areas in line were each short by one hook (but did not display an empty slot) because Hector Moffet had removed hooks that he apparently feels that he WP:OWNs, without also removing the code that creates records and "credits" for hooks that have appeared at DYK, and without editing the nomination templates for "his" hooks to record the fact that he had removed them from the prep area. Both of these hooks had been promoted to the prep areas by another DYK volunteer who had been aware of Hector's request to reserve them for a certain date and had decided to run them on 9 February instead. Given the time-urgent situation, I restored the removed hooks and approved both hook sets for the main-page queue.

Note that DYK does not routinely run hooks on dates requested by the article creator or nominator, although some items are scheduled for "special occasions" when volunteers are convinced that this is justified. There has been plenty of discussion of this situation with Hector Moffet in recent days (including User talk:Jimbo Wales#Orlady's Prejudgment of consensus and scheduling against procedure and User talk:Orlady#Sorry for the intensity, but...). I've lost patience with him and his apparent view that the importance of his political agenda justifies over-riding the standard protocols and disrupting the processes of the Wikipedia community. --Orlady (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, ad hominem to HectorMoffet, who after years of hard gnome work suddenly became a drama queen completely unprovoked.
But what's being missed is that I'm not Gobonobo-- he did nothing wrong to earn your disrespect. He asked for his content to be held, an admin approved for it to be held, and you flat out ran it without a word to either of them. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"He asked for his content to be held, an admin approved for it to be held", and nobody is required to say a word to either of them before running the hook, as any hold is nothing more than a courtesy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger explains the situation well. Also, please note that it was User:Ohconfucius (not me) who moved those hooks to the prep areas. On the Oleg Syromolotov hook, that user's edit summary states "no consensus on Surveillance awareness day, going with olympics; need non American hook." That summary reflects the reality that DYK volunteers post a new set of 7 hooks every 8 hours, and we endeavor to maintain topical balance in each set. It takes the cooperation of a number of volunteers to keep DYK running. How many more hours of volunteer time do you intend to divert from the process of keeping the DYK feature running in order to argue that a couple of individual hooks are uniquely entitled to special treatment? --Orlady (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh poo! These folk who will go out of their way to get their desired date of insertion or top slot are getting annoying. Hector is clearly engaged in advocacy, quite against consensus. He objected before, got in a huff, puts a semi-retired tag on his user page and now creates a ruckus because he wants his own way again. NO. He needs to learn the best way is amicable cooperation, not strong-arm tactics. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Okay, let's move beyond Feb 11 and Gobonobo, that's in the past. Let's just look at going forward and focus on preventing this same problematic behavior from recurring in the future.
I see that Theparties has DYK content approved and being held for the "Investiture of new cardinals appointed by Pope Francis" on Feb 22. Now can we agree that that it's inappropriate of you to run Theparties's nomination for Feb 22 on Feb 19???
And if, for some reason, you DO need to run an admin-approved nomination ahead of its hold date, you need to, at minimum, try to contact Theparties to let them know there's a change of plan.
If you were only rude to me and gobonobo, we can drop it. If it's your standard operating procedure, it's a problem. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"no attempt was even made notify Gobonobo"..."without a word to either of them"..."rude to me and gobonobo"...HectorMoffet, I'm not seeing where you notified Orlady of this discussion (which she evidently found on her own). A tad bit hypocritical, no? 173.209.204.206 (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nah, hypocrisy would be if I didn't try to / want to notify Orlday. In fact, Orlady was the very first commenter, probably alerted via the "Your Notify" gadget, and posted a responding within minutes, as I was still polishing my statement. But you make a good point-- if I had let a discussion go on without notifying Orlady, that would be bad. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Orlady replied 35 minutes after you started the discussion. 173.209.204.207 (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The recurrence of problematic behavior can only happen if there was problematic behavior to recur - and there was no "problematic behavior" here. As for the other stuff you mention, if a DYK queue on February 19th is short and the only way to fill it is to grab a hook being held for February 22nd, then that hook being held for February 22nd is going to run on February 19th, full stop. Holds are a courtesy, and there is no obligation either to hold, maintain a hold, or notify that a hold has been 'run early'. Being "Admin-approved" means nothing at DYK; you don't even need to be autoconfirmed to approve a hook or to move it to a hold area. It requires the use of exactly zero tools to do, and thus whether or not the editor who did it wields a mop is wholly irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

you say "Holds are a courtesy"-- what I want to know is, are we going to be extending that courtesy to Theparties on Feb 22, or should TheParties brace themselves for the same discourtesy Gobonobo experienced. This should be a simple answer: no, as a rule, we won't run held material ahead of schedule. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please stop lawyering, accusing others of wrongdoing and changing the subject away from your own disruptive actions. If you hadn't tried to be so pushy, you might have been pleasantly surprised on 11 feb. Instead, you are getting people's backs up. DYK already has to run by quite a few rules and constraints, and it's often difficult to make up sets accordingly. And I don't see the need for a HectorMoffet Appeasement Policy, thank you very much. Now will you kindly drop that bone of yours?. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The weirdest part is that Orlady is the user who proposed that February 11 be treated as a "special occasion" at DYK. This failed to generate consensus, so she scheduled Hector's hook normally. When he inquired about this, she politely explained that the idea was rejected, informed him that it was past her bedtime, and advised him to raise the matter at WT:DYK if he still felt that a change was needed. Instead, Hector removed the DYK item from the set, moved the article back to the draft namespace and inserted a bogus tag "to keep [it] off mainpage for a few days". He also reported Orlady on Jimbo's talk page (and didn't bother to notify her of that either), claiming that she's part of a clique attempting to undermine consensus. Keep in mind that Orlady proposed the very idea that Hector believes was unfairly cast aside. —David Levy 10:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Really not about me. What courtesies are going to be extended to future DYK newbies? As a general rule, is it okay to cannabilize 'Feb 22 HOLDS on Feb 19? --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:HEAR. —David Levy 10:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is, actually, about you; you can't decide "this AN/I isn't about me". At AN/I, all participants in a discussion are under the microscope - continued "this isn't about me" only puts you under more scrutiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• My above question stands. I'm okay with ME being disrespected-- At least some of my proposal ideas were genuinely controversial. But I have a duty to ensure that I'm the last DYK newbie to be bitten in this way.
  Again, I note that TheParties has DYK content on hold for Feb 22. Is it appropriate for us to run that content on Feb 19 or not??? --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• The problematic behaviour was all your own to begin with, so you have no right to talk about the respect that you feel you are owed. If you go to Le Gavroche in a ripped Tee, shorts and rubber thongs, you'd expect to be told off. OVER AND OUT. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Homophobic hate-speech not withstanding, I note that TheParties has DYK content on hold for Feb 22. Is it appropriate for us to run that content on Feb 19 or not??? All nominations deserve equal respect, TheParties is just one example. The harder it is to for people to admit all nominations are 'equal under the law', the more concerned I get . --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Homophobic hate speech"? Really? (For the record, the "thongs" referred to you may know as "flip-flops".) While Ohconfucious may possibly have been less blunt, there's nothing "homophobic" about what he said; further personal attacks like that may well result in this AN/I report turning into a WP:BOOMERANG. As for your continued refusal to listen to what everyone here is telling you, please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, it's not going to get any deader just because you keep asking the same question over and over because we're not telling you what you apparently want to hear. There was no biting, there was no "misconduct", there is nothing else to see or do here other than continue to dig your hole deeper. Unlike what some would like to believe, we really don't like blocking or banning people, so it'd be appreciated if you'd let the words to the wise be sufficent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is this really what I wake up to? "Potentially holding a DYK to a date" is a nicety, not a requirement - period. Nobody on Wikipedia gets to have things scheduled based on their time. If we have zero DYK's one day, the project will move a couple into the queue. These aren't promises, they're "we'll promise to try, but cannot guarantee". Seriously, calling this "disrespect" is disrespectful to the project en masse DP 10:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, all you insiders that haven't been bitten to pieces may not understand.
Most of us are of the understanding that a hold is held. If that's not the way you want to run things, rewrite the headers to make it crystal clear that nominations are just polite suggestions' requesting special permission from the owners, which the owners may ignore as they please.
My experiences with DYK was very negative because I assumed that my holds would be held.
Now, even if you agree I'm an ahole, let's still learn from my negative experience and make it crystal clear to future users that "holds" aren't held, they're just a "mother may I" plea for special favors from insider-owners, not actual holds like the literal interpretation would suggest. This will decrease future friction.--HectorMoffet (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Rather than look at this from the other side and see that "promised dates" are contrary to the community's concept at large, you wanted to get the last word in and a few zingers too? Nice. Reallllly nice DP 11:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• @HectorMoffet:You have to understand that rescheduling of Syromolotov is not about you. There was no biting. You are wrong to barge in like a bull into the proverbial china shop and expected everyone and everything move out of your way. There is no obligation to hold for a certain date. The regulars do their best to ensure that consensual holding dates are accommodated, but let me just reiterate that 11 February is not such a consensual date.

  BTW, I thought carefully about using the word "thong" that I deliberately prefixed it with the adjective "rubber". Maybe that isn't enough these days of political correctness. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are no "insider owners". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I know that, and you know that-- but I know a few users who don't know this --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone just close this before things go too far?. This isn't the place to change the rules for DYK - that would be Wikipedia talk:Did you know.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Closure is rarely helpful-- I'm asking legitimate questions and I'm not demanding any specific action against anyone in particular. Ignoring a question doesn't make it go away. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

---

There's no shortage of ad hominem, but let's refocus:
The question I'm seeking to have answered is: Who decides if it's okay to run Theparties's Feb 22 holds ahead of schedule? Who is on the list to unilaterally make that decision? Is that one name? is that a few names? Or can that change only be made by community consensus?
When I was a newbie, I genuinely couldn't figure out the answer. I still don't know the answer. You need to make this clear, not just wing it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me make this clear: that question is not the remit of this board; period. DP 11:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• You forget that this is a wiki. The answer to your question will probably be the same as "who will create "2020 FA Cup Final"? – It will be whoever gets around to it. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good answer, OC. I hope your answer is correct-- that no users claim any special ownership of DYK. Sadly, my recent experiences have led me to lose some of my naive optimism. Let us both hope your vision is the accurate one. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing some sample of the vast bureaucracy of pages that make up DYK -- it appears that not only are there rules, but there more rules -- but none of the rules that I found directly address Hector's concern. Since it appears the requested date section is only a couple months old, I assume the rules (I don't know whether they are rule rules, or supplementary rules) are still evolving. So I suggest the Hector post a polite inquiry on WT:DYK asking what the current practice is, and perhaps requesting an appropriate note be placed in one of the rules pages setting the appropriate expectations for the management of date requests are unable to be fulfilled. NE Ent 16:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Hector has been poorly treated. He spent the time, wrote up the articles, and expected them to run on a day they were scheduled for, only to be told by some other editors that his event is something not worth commemorating, while others' events are. Some have justified this by saying the issue was closed when a different proposal, one to run years-old hooks on a Special Day, was rejected, but that's just wrong. Regarding advocacy: Wikipedia's policy on advocacy makes no distinction between sport, religion, and politics - if any one of the three deserves to be held for a certain day, so do the others. I raised the example of the elevation of the Cardinals because we have to decide what happens if someone wants to hold articles about a less popular religious group (such as the Universal Catholic Church). If we have centralized authority claiming the right to decide whose hooks have the right to be scheduled, we may end up with a list of official Wikipedia religions that can claim scheduling rights, whereas others are unapproved. Since that is an unacceptable outcome, this is an unacceptable policy.

Now it may be that allowing anyone to schedule hooks for a certain day in the near future is more work, but it's fair, and the work could be automated. The elaborate system of DYK holding areas dates back to pre-Scribunto times - it is possible for me and others to write scripts that could implement some other procedure. I don't really know that much about DYK, but this shouldn't be rocket science.

In the meanwhile, I think it's important for Hector to be careful about doing ad hoc edits/moves to fix the situation if they could have unintended consequences. I don't want the whole DYK mechanism broken over a day or two difference in when a hook runs; I want the problems fixed. The NSA is not closing up shop on February 12, nor the agencies with which they share surveillance data, and it is all too likely that Wikipedia will be facing existential threats from imminent legislation sometime in the next year or two. There will be all too many opportunities for the site, by necessity, to get involved in activism to save itself. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it's important to avoid conflating the concept of a hook being held for a certain date with the concept of a "special occasion" on which multiple hooks sharing a common theme are run together. The latter (which was proposed in this instance) simply isn't feasible without consensus that a particular "special occasion" is suitable. Otherwise, any editor or group of editors could write/expand a bunch of articles from a particular subject area (birds, insects, plants, ships, the Eurovision Song Contest, Friends episodes, etc.) and submit DYK hooks for an arbitrary date, thereby thwarting efforts to maintain a balance of topics.

So we (by which I mean the Wikipedia community, as I'm not particularly active at DYK) have to decide when a "special occasion" is well established and widely recognized by reliable sources. Your concern regarding unequal treatment (and the potential for certain groups, such as religions, to be excluded unfairly) is a valid one, but that isn't what occurred in this instance. The Day We Fight Back is a planned protest, not an event with recognition or cultural significance approaching that of the Olympics or the investiture of new cardinals appointed by the Pope.

And as I pointed out to you on Jimbo's talk page, these articles' subjects merely relate to the political cause behind the February 11 event, not the event itself. It's no secret that the motive behind the request is to participate in the protest, which contradicts multiple Wikipedia principles (and which there is no consensus to do).

The discussion on Jimbo's talk page also contains the following exchange:

Note that the "lengthy discussion" linked above rejected a different proposal to re-run old DYKs, which I also opposed, but is not a blanket ban on this topic!
One of the subsections (introduced by Orlady, as noted above) is titled "Proposal: Treat this like a 'special occasion'". You supported said proposal, so it's curious that you've now overlooked it. Discussion of the broader idea to tie DYK into the February 11 protest occurred throughout the parent section.

So I don't know why you're still making that assertion. —David Levy 17:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually lost track of that thread - but scrolling down, I see 5 Support and 3 Oppose, for taking over all the DYKs on the page. How is this possibly evidence that we shouldn't allow any of these DYKs to run on that day?? Wnt (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, there are still 8 of Hector's nominations in the DYK which have not yet made it to the queues or the MP (of which 7 are US topics). They will all eventually get there unless the articles themselves get deleted. But bearing in mind the logjam and the quotas applied for the building of sets, simple mathematics mean that we probably couldn't run them all on 11 Feb even if we wanted to. But this is a digression.

As I stated earlier, Hector was "poorly treated" mainly because he got worked up that DYK regulars would not entertain a Surveillance Day holding. He himself treated others quite a bit less than spectacularly. Respect works both ways.

As to combating advocacy, DYK could decide not to entertain any polemic topics such as religion or politics. And I'm not sure we are ready to do away with holding for St Valentine's Day or other such religious or quasi-religious observance. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 18:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I honestly don't know what's going on but I'm fine with as long as what I nominated appears.--Theparties (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There was absolutely no consensus for running the 'Day we Fight Back' as a special occasion, therefore no hooks for it should be held. Matty.007 18:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clear legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jasondalesweeet (talk · contribs) diff Good. I'll see you next week to meet in person with my attorney for discriminating against me. Jim1138 (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup - I was just looking into this contributor, after responding to another legal threat on the help desk [92]. A post on their talk page also contains this little gem: ""I'll fry your computer's CPU and kill it instantly to make sure it won't ever work again from all the way from over here next time you bother my page." [93] AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've indeffed for Legal threats and personal attacks, there is similar on Talk:Qbase Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:FPC

Just to note, we seem to be in a bit of a reviewer slump at Featured pictures just now - a lot of things are closing with just under the minimum number of supports, and no opposes. So if anyone would like to review, please do! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Troll?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user with an account he can't log into here. I'm not sure if I'm violating WP:DENY by posting here, but could someone look at potentially blocking User:Sonarclawz? His last several edits appear to be trolling. 182.249.240.26 (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would you get that idea? Sonarclawz (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Because after almost two years' absence you showed up at an article about an ancient Japanese poet and posted an incomprehensible rant about "purges conducted in 1985" and used triple and possibly quadruple negatives.[94] Your other edits don't look much better. 182.249.240.6 (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you're required to discuss directly with the other editor in order to try and resolve things before coming to ANI (especially before throwing names like "troll" around), could you point us to the results of that discussion? DP 10:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is that rule written down? This isn't a dispute; I saw an account that seemed to be doing nothing but posting nonsense comments in RFCs, so I reported it. I'd like someone more experienced with these issues to look into the issue further. The diff I posted in the comment above should be evidence enough that something is fishy. 182.249.240.38 (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page say "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page" - pretty clear. You saw a user that you believed was causing issues, so clarify before tattling on them. This board is not to have "someone with more experience...to look further", it's to report serious incidents of disruption that require immediate Admin action. DP 11:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kautilya Society for Intercultural Dialogue

The sudden appearance of numerous keeps by new or one-purpose accounts is suspicious. Can some admin please check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Extremely abusive IP

178.84.30.14 (talk · contribs) has only made one edit (which an alert editor reverted within 2 minutes), but I hope that this extremely abusive level of Personal Attack means that they can be blocked: it can't go to AIV as it's not "persistent" vandalism. PamD 18:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The editor only made one edit and left about six hours ago. Since any block is as likely to affect an innocent party as the party making the personal attack, I don't think a block is warranted. If they were to make a second such attack from the IP, that would be another matter. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mint Julep, clear vandalism

WP:DR will be ineffective given the malicious nature of the revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dubyavee User has been notified, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mint_julep&action=history this is clear vandalism, user stated in edit summary that "play cited in 1850" the reference that was remove long predates this, this seems very disruptive and was not even discussed on the talk page, this needs immediate attention. Thank You.Drinkreader (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Drinkreader: I suggest you take your proposed addition to the talk page. I do not see any malice in Dubyavee's removal of the text, so I don't see anything that requires immediate administrator attention here. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, ANI is not the place to address editing concerns, as you have threatened to do with this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink. Editing here works by consensus, not by fiat and force. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Expert Master Mixologist David Herpin claims the mint julep appears in print as early as 1765."That extra mint julep has put the true pluck in me. Now for it! (Aside.) Mr. Tiffany, Sir — you needn't think to come over me, Sir"

Was removed by user because of (play cited is 1850, remove commercial, rv)by the abusive editor? I'm sorry? How is this not malicious? If someone confuses this for a commercial and doesn't realize that they are removing an edit that predates the suggested version by 85 years, WP:DR, will likely not be effective. This does infact need attention.Drinkreader (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. First of all, no. You can't judge one single edit (well, two consecutive ones) as "malicious" when they are not obviously so. ANI is not the first venue for this; Drinkreader should have discussed this elsewhere. Perhaps Drinkreader is a bit inexperienced in the process, but ANI should be a last, or next-to-last resort, and this is, in the first instance, just a tiny little thing.

  However, "Expert Master Mixologist David Herpin" was discussed here (was it?) or elsewhere not too long ago (can't find it in the archives right now). Drinkreader has been adding references to Herpin all over the place--this Herpin. I'm tempted to use mass rollback: this is a totally non-notable source, and its addition is really spammy. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is clear spam and should be mass-rollbacked. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, I was reminded too of this ANI from a month ago, where questionable sources were being used to support additions to drink articles. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Further, I pulled a copy of the cited source, Representative American Plays by Arthur Hobson Quinn. It was published in 1917. The play cited—and the quote is correct from page 325 of the book—is Fashion by Anna Cora Mowatt Ritchie, which Quinn states was written in 1845. Accordingly, if anybody is to be taken to task over this, it's Drinkreader for making a claim that is not supported by the cited source. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Rrrright, I looked all over the place for that. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Drinkreader: Are you editing on behalf of Herpin or some other party? I point out the edit summary in this edit: "Updated with more current accurate revisions, citations needed, far earlier references posted, current version left on the page WP:Good faith,sqgibbons may revert my client tells me, it will be posted in ani/user will be informed." The mention of "my client" makes it appear that you may be editing on some other party's behalf. This is in addition to your own admission of writing books about the subject in this edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The book in question is not A Season of Youth: The American Revolution and the Historical Imagination Kamme, but infact, Representative American plays - Page 325 by Arthur Hobson Quinn in 1765. Tell me what would make you all happiest, it seems I am not effective at pleasing you.Drinkreader (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed all of the unsourced additions that involved "Expert Master Mixologist David Herpin". This was clear spam. The editor does appear to make the occasional valid edit; they need to ensure that they do that from now on. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The play cited as a source is "Fashion" by Anna Cora Mowatt (born 1819),published London, 1850, W. Newbery. The line quoted is from that play. It is not 1765. Dubyavee (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Rollback?

Okay, based on this discussion I'm going to start removing some of these by hand where I see them. None of them seem too encyclopedic, and they are dubious beyond being spammy. There's a clear COI here, as Drinkreader admits here[95] to being the one who wrote the Amazon eBook 'The Julep Family of Drinks',[96] i.e. "Expert Master Mixologist David Herpin. Searching the web I find mostly self-promotion, which is fine in the bartending world but not here in an encyclopedia. Even if he were recognized by authoritative sources as the world's greatest mixologist, that does not make him an authority on history. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, Wikidemon! Based on that, I'd say any edit with "Expert Master Mixologist David Herpin claims" or the like is at best original research and at worst blatant self promotion and should be rolled back. I don't inherently have a problem with Drinkreader editing articles relating to mixed drinks; however, he's got to cite secondary sources (not himself), and the sources that he cites have to actually support the claims he's making. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

block evasion

This user account was created after his ip spamming was curtailed by an indef block and is continuing the same sort of behaviour. See his classic NOTTHEM post Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#already banned, need alot of help. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he just needs some Wikipedia love. It's not clear whether "I am a new editor and im already banned" is referring to a past blocked account, or perhaps a use of "banned" to refer to the current concern over COI spam edits rather than in its technical Wikipedia sense. If we can assume that he's a well-meaning professional mixologist that sincerely wants to contribute to the knowledge of drinks on the encyclopedia, and what better way than to cite and promote himself here, that's really not evil, just a little uninformed as to how this project works. Instead of making him feel terrible and an enemy who's going to tell everyone what an awful place Wikipedia is, why not somebody go and cheer him up and show him that Wikipedia is a great way to do things, just not an original platform for original research or audience-building. All of his reactions, including NOTTHEM, are pretty understandable, that's what a lot of people would do if feeling ganged up on in an unfamiliar place. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

and? I dont even remember when its lifted, im owning up to it, ban me again, but ban this username so I can know when its done. I would like to come back and be a helpful contributor, if you will have me. Just let me know, you aren't taking away anything cause it was never mine to have. Be fair please, you keep mentioning my books and I have said nothing of the sort, so you are being unfair. You say I am citing them when I am not, you are being unfair and making inaccurate statements. yes I am block evading. I registered a user name, I want a clean slate, i'm not the one with the problem here, I am only an inexperienced editor who wants to contribute, but you guys are gunning hard for me and dismissing much larger violations of wiki codes of conduct, i'm sorry you feel it's necessary, but again, I guess I would hate truth too if I shatter belief systems, i've already proven on mint julep: talk that you are incorrect but whatever. How long is the ban?Drinkreader (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 1 week for block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Jamie-- but I don't know why we don't simply indef this user (and follow it with an SPI, which seems to be the next logical step). They have a battlefield mentality (as evidenced by this thread and the previous one), they don't know what reliable sources are, and they're here to spam their own book, all the while telling the world how great they are. Expert Mixologist David Herpin (that's how you put it in the articles, Drinkreader) needs to find another venue. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • At the time I didn't realize how far back this behavior went. I see that the block has already been extended to a month, and I'd naturally support an immediate and indef block if any further block evasion or disruptive editing occurs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

After a lengthy and prolonged discussion with Mr Herpin, I have reached some conclusions. First, regardless of whether Mr Herpin's book is itself a reliable source, it shouldn't be considered OR to reference the sources which Mr Herpin cites in his book. It would only be OR to use Mr Herpin's own speculations, or to refer to him with that less-than-modest descriptor. I will not be unblocking Mr Herpin, nor will I be asking someone else to do so, but once his block expires, I ask that he be allowed to continue using his impressive collection of source material to help improve Wikipedia. DS (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Drinkreader ban proposal

This has been going on for a very long time. Drinkreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the first registered account, but this individual has been in touch with OTRS a number of times (see merged Ticket:2014012710015825) and it is absolutely clear that the problems are consistent over time, and have been running for at least a year. The user's real name can be trivially inferred from the long-term attempts to credit a named individual. Patient explanation by email and on Wikipedia does not seem to have succeeded in helping this person to understand WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:TRUTH and the inadvisability of adding namechecks for yourself. I would propose a topic ban, but there's no evidence of any other interest. I think we would save everyone a lot of time and pain by simply banning this person. His intention is fine: he wants to share knowledge. His methods are not: he wants to assert that it is his knowledge, and as a self-described "master mixologist" he does not feel he has any need to defer to independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I spoke with Drinkreader on wikipedia-en-help extensively yesterday, leading to at least one productive action, and I concur with the sentiment of DS in the section above. Drinkreader seems passionate and knowledgeable about mixology. He's also having trouble finding the correct mode of collaboration and writing required for contributing to Wikipedia. He's already found out the painful way that promoting his own work is not a good idea. Such behaviour shouldn't re-emerge; we're not looking for promotion of "Expert Mixologist David Herpin" and his books - but we can definitely use his subject knowledge, knowledge of source material and passion. Neither should the block evading behaviour re-emerge. I too noticed a NOTTHEM mentality, and difficulty with understanding RS, OR and SYN. Frankly, the latter concepts can be difficult, especially when RS'es are (possibly) mistaken, and it takes quite a bit of sources-tango to get things in to Wikipedia shape - and some understanding that newly discovered relations and derivations that haven't previously been published have no place on Wikipedia, regardless of them being true or not. So to be clear in my expectations (and I assume he's reading along, so I added some additional detail and explaining), I expect Drinkreader to

• Stop any block-evading behaviour. Blocking and protection are desperation moves from our end. If warned to stop doing something, you should stop doing it, not continue until blocked. And definitely not try to evade the block by trying to edit logged out or create different accounts. This should be obvious, and should not (ever) happen again from this user.
• Stop any behaviour that can be construed as self-promotion. I think this point has been driven home with Drinkreader already, but it doesn't hurt to repeat it here.
• Start working collaboratively. Drop the battleground mentality. There is no conspiracy, only people trying to write the best encyclopedia they can. Drinkreader should be welcome to join in working with the community, but not to battle the community to present his POV in wikipedias articles. I expect at times this will pop up again and needs some reminding from time to time at first.
• Listen when people have concerns about OR, SYN and RS. Mistakes are fine and expected to make, but when people say that edits are problematic in this regard, Drinkreader should first stop to listen how and why it's problematic rather than immediately jumping to defending and explaining. SYN isn't easy to grok for a newcomer, but is quite important. Drinkreader has to acknowledge that if someone tells him that edits are problematic, they are doing so in good faith, with the interest of the encyclopedia up front, and that they probably have more experience with the way Wikipedia treats sources. In other words, he is expected to make mistakes and learn from them rather than make mistakes and defend them tooth and nail.

I have good hope and expectation that the first two won't be a problem in the future. I still have sufficient hope in the latter two. I have no access to OTRS tickets, so I can't read about the history here. It's possible that if I could, I would have a different opinion. With that I weakly oppose the proposal. If there is a clear consensus from people with access to the OTRS tickets that my assessment is mistaken, they may just be right. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since his history is being discussed, I'm just noting that this post last May seems to be the earliest edit which I have found under 174.69.112.172's contribs...an IP not previously mentioned in this thread.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignoranceisnotbliss19

Editor blocked indefinitely due to continued attacks. m.o.p 03:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Ignoranceisnotbliss19 (talk · contribs)

Hard to know where to begin here: the seeming antisemitism, the personal attacks on two editors, the edit-warring and the post-block comments that have earned him a warning from an admin....

• This WP:SPA editor [97] was edit-warring over original-research synthesis to politicize the page Scarlett Johansson. Three editors independent of one another reverted his edits; even after going to four reverts and a 3RR report going in, he continued to a fifth revert. And then he wrote this to an editor other than myself: " "Lets [sic] just cut to the chase, you are a Jewish man with an agenda to keep Jewish interests in illegally obtained land..." [98]

• When I pointed out to him that I and another editor, unaware the other was doing so, each independently reported his 3RR vio, he wrote: "It is well known MANY people have MANY wikipedia accounts [NOTE: A false claim of sockpuppetry] so cut the crap and please do not waste everyones valuable time with this nonsense Tenebrae. You and I, as well as everyone IN THE ENTIRE WORLD knows you are simply trying to control unfavorable information from reaching wikipedia pages and the masses...." [99].

• This is with an edit-summary calling me, personally, "self-serving." I don't know Scarlett Johansson and have no personal stake in the issue of Israeli settlements, so how "self-serving" is fair or accurate, I don't know.

• Other comments included calling myself and another editor "priggish" and "generating unsolicited and viscous [sic] attacks" [100];

• and calling another editor — the "Jewish" one — "BOORISH and DULL" [101] (presumably meaning "dull-witted" and not "boring").

In my experience, political zealots of this temperament are rarely serious about being constructive, longterm contributors, and certainly alienate other editors and take up enormous amounts of time and energy to no good end. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I blocked the user for 24 hours for edit warring. It will expire in about six hours. They did a lot of ranting on their user page, but, although the ranting was unusually virulent, I let it go because it's not atypical for blocked editors to react by ranting. However, they crossed a line when they made antisemitic remarks against Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and I removed it and warned the user that if they did it again, I would revoke access to their talk page. They restored the comment (I think they altered it slightly but it was still unacceptable), and I revoked access. I didn't increase the duration of their block, though. I might have done so had they been blocked in the first instance for personal attacks. It still occurred to me. If Tenebrae is proposing a longer block, I have no objection if there is a consensus for doing so, or even if one administrator wishes to do so. One way or the other, I don't think the user is going to remain an editor on Wikipedia. Just a question if it happens now or later.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

See user's talk page for further details. I think dealing with this now is the best option. I've blocked the user indefinitely but restored talk page access so that they may answer my questions. m.o.p 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As always, m.o.p. is a model of fairness and diplomacy but at the same time no pushover. I fully support his way of handling the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Bbb23. Hopefully things work out. m.o.p 02:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent incorrect rounding of numbers

Hope this is the correct board to report this.* I have noticed a lot of film articles have incorrect runtimes and yesterday I spent some time fixing them (list of edits from the IP I was using yesterday, with edit summaries).

As I'm sure you know if 30 seconds or more should be rounded up to the nearest minute, but for unexplained reasons someone is rounding down these numbers. I noticed this issue in several film articles, and also noticed that a particular user User:Lemaroto was doing some or all of it.

Yesterday the user changed the Robocop film article, and I added a note on the users Talk page explaning how numbers should be rounded. The note was quickly blanked. (Other editors also made corrections and added strongly worded warnings to articles that had incorrect runtimes.)

Another editor also added a similar note on the talk page. It was also blanked without reply. A short read back on the edit history of the Talk page suggests User:Lemaroto does not reply or discuss, and only blanks the page. Checking back through a few pages of the contribution history (which you can cross check against my edits mentioned above, indicates a persistent pattern of unconstructive edits.

Again today another incorrect and unconstructive edit was made to the Robocop article.

• If this is not the correct place to report this please direct me to the correct place and help me start action to discourage this user form persistent unconstructive edits. -- 109.76.247.81 (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I added a note to the users talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lemaroto&diff=594733773&oldid=594712738 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.247.81 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• • It is as 109 says it is, so we probably need admin intervention. NE Ent 22:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I just dropped an ANI notification on their talk page and also a final warning for disruption. Blackmane (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

109 did notify the editor, they just didn't use the template (not meant as a criticism of Blackmane's edit, just want to make it clear 109 didn't skip the step). NE Ent 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, hence why I didn't say "which you should have done" after "I just dropped an ANI notification...". Using the template adds a very obvious link to ANI (and yes I also saw that 109 had wikilinked it in their comment). Blackmane (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Note Hi guys, I would like to point out that I also had some issues with Lemaroto. For some reason, he deciced to unlink the name Neil Druckmann in the article of The Last of Us. I wrote him a personal message, which was blanked less than two hours later. When he unlinked the name again, I issued a warning, which also was just blanked. That Lemaroto doesn't communicate at all is very annoying, he doesn't reply to talk page messages but never leaves an edit summary. But his edits are mostly constructive... --Soetermans. T / C 08:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lemarato seems to have managed to go a day without making any unconstructive edits. I've gone back further in his contribution history to check more the films he has edited. I don't know if you have an ongoing watchlist for longer term behaviour. The lack of discussion or even edit summaries makes it hard to know anything about intent. (Note: There is no chance Lemerato mistook a minute for 100 seconds rather than 60 seconds, even in the case of the film Gravity the runtime had more than 50 seconds on the minute and that was also rounded down.)

Sad that people would mess about with something as seemingly simple as runtime, now I feel like I have to double check and provide a source even for that. Frankly I'd ban anyone who consistently fails to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and at least show enough good faith to provide an edit summary. Any less than this basic level of courtesy poisons the culture and makes it difficult if not impossible to distinguish between outright vandalism and misguided edits from deletionists who cant be bothered to try and improve things. Wikipedia has long been stacked in favor of deletionists which (amongst other complaints) is why I abandoned my account and now only occasionally edit as a IP user.

Thanks for your prompt responses in this case, I will not be actively watching Lemarato or this discussion any further. -- 93.107.152.97 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lemaroto has since blanked their talk page, again, so it can be assumed they've seen the warnings. However, none of their edits have involved runtime rounding down. That they don't use edit summaries is not really a big deal, although the lack of communication could be problematic in the futures if another issue pops up. At this point, I don't really think there is a need for admin action unless they go back to their old habits. Blackmane (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org

I stumbled into a discussion on OpenOffice.org, which appears to be suffering from a degree of ownership (by David Gerard). The article is superficially well-referenced but a little reference checking shows it is riddled with statements that are not supported by the given references. For example, the article contains a statement that:

"[Oracle] also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License, at the suggestion of IBM ... as IBM did not want the code put under a copyleft license."

To support this, a blog entry is referenced that outlines IBM preference against copyleft licenses with regard to Open Office. However, no connection is made in the source between IBM preference against copyleft licenses and Oracle's decision-making around licensing when donating the code to Apache. Thus the need for an imaginative interpretation of sources (or synthesis).

I opened a number of threads challenging a sample of statements like this for verifiablilty. As I expected, the response was defensive, avoided the substance of the challenge, lay blame at my ignorance, or brushed off the challenge as part of agenda pushing on my part. I had hoped that more would participate in the discussion. There is, however, an element of weariness in trying to resolve issues with the article.

I'd like now to seek views from the broader community. I think Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard is most suitable. But I expect that doing so will draw accusations of forum shopping.

So, is the community supportive of seeking views from the broader community on issues to do with verifiability OpenOffice.org? Does the community have a suggestion for the best way to do this (e.g. NOR/N, RFC, etc.?) --Tóraí (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Views from the broader community" can be obtained at Wikipedia:Third opinion. This isn't anything to do with administrators, and isn't an incident. It's an ordinary content dispute that you need to resolve using the ordinary Wikipedia:Dispute resolution system. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't suitable for 3O because there are more than two editor involved. I've asked here because it is a well-trafficked noticeboard and I'd like to fend-off an incident before it happens. Issues arising from WP:OWN, and how to deal with it, are frequently raised here.

But, broadly speaking, I take it your comment means you'd be supportive of seeking another venue (beyond the steps already taken) to resolve the issue? (i.e. WP:SEEKHELP) --Tóraí (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen ownership at the article. What I have seen is an editor who is unfamiliar with the nomenclature tell us that what's clear to others is not clear to that editor. Sorry Tóraí. I've tried my best to show you that and I don't have the time to continue. Thanks for opening this here. I'd like to suggest a topic ban on Tóraí on anything having to do with technology topics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban Being critical does no warrant a topic ban at all. It even less warrants a topic ban as wide as Walter Görlitz suggest. That is what I call: silencing of an opponent. The Banner talk 01:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support WP:V enforcement Apparently Walter Gorlitz believes that things obvious to some don't require accurate citations.--v/r - TP 02:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Torai has also been pushing an idiosyncratic view of the whole matter at Talk:OpenOffice, which was roundly rejected by all discussants, and is part of the present discussion. This is an editor pushing an odd view, and then claiming it is an administrative matter. Oh, with canvassing - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

David, I notified you, Walter Görlitz, KAMiKAZOW and Palu of this thread. These were all of the participants in the discussion that led us here. This is normal community practice, as you know (see Wikipedia:Canvassing). --Tóraí (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for rangeblock of 190.96.32.0/20

An user in the range 190.96.32.0/20 (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing through many months multiple articles at en and es.wiki. I came in the past to request a global rangeblock, but it was moved to meta.wiki. At meta.wiki the situation was sightly discussed, and regardless the constant evidence of this person vandalism, nothing has been done.([102]). That time ANI discussion informs better how this person works, and his/her vandalism is so undetectable, their edits last for days or weeks (s/he changes dates or years for living people and releasements of objects). The lattest known IP is 190.96.41.186 (talk · contribs), in which changes a date regardless the sources. I will open an ANI case at es.wiki as well. Considering this has lasted for months a short block will not stop him/her. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

From the 190s comes a lot of edit warring on music articles, mostly genre warring and vandalism. It has gotten to the point where I investigate any and all 190.x edits that I see on my watchlist. Some of the IPs are proxies, so it is possible the person is not working from within Chile's borders. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

After looking further at Tbhotch's problem editor, I can see that the target articles are cars and music. The person puts in the wrong year without bothering with a reference. I can confirm that this person is using IPs based in Santiago, Chile:

• 190.96.32.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.13.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.35.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.49.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.35.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.42.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.13.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.12.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.35.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.42.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.13.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The bulk of the range is roughly 190.96.32.xxx to 190.96.41.xxx, if a few outliers are removed from either end. This person has been active for a long time, certainly as early as May 2013, possibly earlier. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked the /18 on this range (190.96.0.0), no collateral damage. m.o.p 06:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you MOP! Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome Binksternet. m.o.p 03:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A different case: genre warrior working from Peru IPs

The ones I tangled with in my last 1000 edits are the following:

• 190.232.2.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.232.55.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.232.193.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.208.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.236.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.242.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.243.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.247.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.247.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.248.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.89.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.155.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.156.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.159.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.160.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.177.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.197.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.253.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.27.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.27.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.71.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.117.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.144.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.168.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.170.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

It is quite possible these are all the same person. Some of the edit warring is about nationality, such as whether the BeeGees can be said to be from Australia since they were raised but not born there, or whether a certain UK musician can be called an expatriate because they live elsewhere. Other edits dispute non-mainstream sexuality, such as the bisexuality of Dave Davies. However, these two pools of edits may be tied together by quick sequential edits from the same session, for instance this anti-LGBT edit followed by this UK nationality edit, both from Special:Contributions/190.232.55.206. Then there are tons of edits about song/album/band/artist genres, such as this genre change, again from our friend 190.232.55.206 who is dialing in from Lima, Peru, which is flagged by some carriers as blacklisted. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This rangeblock is pretty unfeasible - there will almost certainly be collateral on a /16 range. m.o.p 06:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That all depends if we even get that much traffic from that range that is not a result of this editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes--the amount of disruption caused by these editors is huge, so if we weight that against collateral damage, the balance might come out positive. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong and Drmies: A /16 is over 60,000 IP addresses - that's a sizeable amount of Peru's address space. I'd be hesitant to block for that reason alone. We'd also be eliminating all the good edits coming from the range. CU confirms that there's a lot of activity on the range, so we can't just silence it. An edit filter is probably a better option, unless you can narrow down the chief offending IPs to a smaller range. m.o.p 03:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, if you say so. (Nice template, "reply to".) I don't see a filter that could prevent these changes, though I suppose the "changed numbers" alert can go off. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Folks, at the request of Master of Puppets, I've put on my checkuser hat and reviewed the range for collateral. I've also looked at the edits of a random selection of the IPs listed in these two sections. First off, there's too much collateral damage to block the range, and in fact I am inclined to suggest lifting the rangeblock that MOP made earlier. Secondly...and perhaps more importantly... a lot of the edits being made by these IPs are correct edits, although perhaps unsourced. Looking at their edits, and the current state of the article, many examples show that registered users subsequently added the same information, or a close variation of the information (and often still unsourced!). Not all of them are good edits, but few of them would justify blocking the IP editor at all. A range block is not appropriate here. Risker (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tbhotch and Binksternet: Per Risker's advice above, I'm considering unblocking first range. Any insight you could lend? m.o.p 15:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If we are talking about the top group of IPs from Santiago, Chile, the 190.96.xxx guy, then I have no idea why you would ever unblock that dude. He's a terrible drain on resources. This change to a biography was dead wrong, and there was a parallel attempt to put the same wrong information at the date page. Then the first wrong fact was repeated after being reverted. This change to a song was wrong, and this change to a biography was even more wrong. I chose examples from just one session of editing, so multiply that times 100. This guy is persistent and not here to help. His intentional factual errors are insidious. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

...And I am interested in the suggestion that the Peruvian vandal might best be stopped with a filter of some sort. What sort? Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If the problem is as widespread as claimed, an edit filter can be cobbled together that tags any edit from that range. When I have a second I'll try to review the edits (I haven't gone through them all yet), but Risker's assessment above makes it sound like this isn't quite worth an edit filter, either. m.o.p 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe

CensoredScribe has already violated his topic ban regarding categories by adding several pages to Category:Size change in fiction, Category:Giants in television, Category:Giants in films, and Category:Fictional characters who can change size: [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]. I was alerted to this when he edited Power Rangers and Ultraman.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong you are mistaken. The restriction I was given according to User:Georgewilliamherbert is for making new categories; not adding to existing categories. "Per [7] the community has concluded that the following editing restriction is placed on your editing, going forwards:

CensoredScribe is limited to creating categories that have met with consensus, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or another appropriate venue, be it a Project talk page or ____ (fill in the blank)."Size change is quite clearly an element of ultraman and power rangers no one would deny as they are in every single episode. Please discuss why you don't think these examples are not appropriate; rather than just revert; it is more encyclopedic and sets a better example. I would like to know why you are doing this. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A good portion of the debate was held because of your poor determinations of whether or not the categories you added met WP:DEFINING, and it was my impression that the actual topic ban also included that, beyond whatever Georgewilliamherbert posted on your user talk page. However, I cannot seem to find the discussion in the archives at the moment to confirm this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone have an opinion on whether this revert (of admittedly poor content) is abuse of rollback? Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I don't have rollback anymore. And as far as I was aware that was one of several poor category additions/changes. I did not know it was just a really bad sentence added to that one page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  You should still have added an edit summary. It wasn't clear why you'd reverted and that wasn't vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  A minor quibble I know, but that was done with Twinkle, not with rollback, so not using an edit summary was definitely out of line. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I didn't see the content of the edit until it was pointed out here. And even then, WP:rollback is allowed to be used to revert multiple problematic, even though not vandalistic, changes across several pages given that the user of rollback leaves a message on the talk page of the other editor. As it was the case here and all last week, CensoredScribe posted something on my talk page before I even had a chance to go to his.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I didn't see the content of the edit until it was pointed out here.? So you just effectively "rolled it back" without even looking at it? Am I reading that correctly? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I hit "revert" on every edit he made that seemed to be related to the ones I saw pop up on my watchlist. So one of them was not the same as the others and I didn't double check it and was not aware of this fact until brought up by Drmies. Who gives a shit? It was not a great edit anyway. And as I stated above, I would have gone to CensoredScribe's user talk to explain the problems with the edits he made but he is just too god damn fast and went to me first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Propose topic ban on CesoredScribe against any mass-changes, mass-additions, mass-deletions, and any other large changes to categories. He may add-remove categories from any one article that he is focused on editing specifically.--v/r - TP 04:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. You don't impose sanctions on an editor for not violating a topic ban. Either find proof that this editor was formally banned from adding existing categories, or start a new case based on his modifications of existing categories actually being problematic behavior in and of itself, or leave him alone. Wnt (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  "start a new case based on his modifications of existing categories" This is a new topic ban for a new case. See Ryulong's diffs above. User fails to meet WP:DEFINING as described above. Same problems existed in the ANI thread 3 days ago.--v/r - TP 05:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, my point is you shouldn't confuse whether he's violating a ban with whether he's violating policy. My interpretation of the OP was that the diffs demonstrated he was violating the ban, rather than violating WP:DEFINING. It's hard for me without knowledge of the topic to evaluate that; I would assume that so long as one giant Power Ranger character exists that is redirected to Power Rangers, the article can be properly categorized under Giants in Fiction. Wnt (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If one character in all of a work of fiction for which there are probably several hundred named characters falls into one esoteric category, it's okay to categorize that whole work of fiction within that category?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The way you put it I don't know; as I said I don't know the series. But if he says size change occurs in just about every episode, I'm more likely to believe his characterization than yours, because he actually seems to like this stuff. In any case, someone better figure out - if the basis for a topic ban is that his interpretation of DEFINING is unacceptably poor, someone ought to know whether the edits cited are defining or not, right? Wnt (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban with the understanding that he can only add-remove categories where it is obvious that he has been editing the article, not just minor changes and then a category change. I would also support a complete topic ban for anything to do with categories. I got no response when I posted to his talk page telling him that adding El Cid to Category:Mythological sword fighters was inappropriate, and I have now no confidence in his ability to deal with categories at all. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, as it should've been put in place in the last ANI thread, irrespective of Ryulong's questionable actions/behaviour. The example highlighted Dougweller shows that CensoredScribe at best has no idea what they are doing, and at worst, is being willfully disruptive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support, CensoredScribe's incompetence in this area is troubling, as he has constantly been made aware for months now that his categorizations are not proper, and even with an ANI thread that has forbidden him from making new categories, he thinks it's perfectly fine to treat existing categories the same way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support. This editor has demonstrated, alas, that he requires further experience with Wikipedia before he can be trusted with categorisation. A topic ban will allow time for him to learn the ropes without the temptation to act, and once he can demonstrate he groks the system, it can be lifted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Administrativd Note - I do not believe any violation of the existing topic ban I enacted has happened, and told CS so on his talk page. However, for evident reasons, I have asked them to stop all category related edits while this ANI discussion runs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban on any category edits - This user has taken up far too much time from other editors policing their edits around categories, not just creating categories but in their addition of articles to inappropriate categories. I've had my run ins, and some of the warnings on his talk page are from me, but it's taking up far too much of everyone's time now and it's becoming unfortunately obvious that they are not able to make sound decisions when it comes to adding an article to a category or not. Canterbury Tail talk 13:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe Power Rangers having size change is being questioned is it? Every single monster they fight does as much, if they have to constantly be using the power for it to count than superman doesn't have any powers at all by Ryulongs definition. Compared to the other 100 some fictional swordsmen I have added; which were not reverted; I think making an honest mistake with classifying El Cid as a mythological sword fighter is acceptable. None of the characters from bleach were listed as swordsmen before I mentioned it. Why don't we actually discuss whether any of the films or anime I've been adding categories to legitimately feature size growth or giants in fiction? What other category have I been adding to and creating a problem for, exactly? CensoredScribe (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  CensoredScribe, this isn't about your particular choices on a handful of articles. This is about your established inability to understand WP:DEFINING.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Massive process fail We have a tradition, which makes some sense, that Block discussions belong in ANI while ban discussions belong in AN. OP started a post in ANI with an allegation of a topic ban violation, but no proposed remedy. Perhaps the expectation was a short block, but it wasn't stated. Then it is pointed out that the edits were not a violation of the ban. Some felt the edits were not appropriate, so think a revised topic ban is warranted. Maybe it is, but modifying the terms of a topic ban belong in AN. As for whether a ban is appropriate, I see six edits identified, and unless I miss something, not a single edit to the editors page identifying a problem. I don't think we should be topic banning an editor without a single word to the editor identifying the problem. Recommendation - drop this discussion, explain to CensoredScribe why the edits are not ideal, and see if it continues. If so, entertain a topic ban in AN.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  What? Why should this venue matter? Why should the fact that I did not mention a remedy matter? We already had a ban discussion here last week about CensoredScribe where he should have understood what the issue was. He clearly has not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Well, not specifying a remedy makes it hard for editors to support a remedy. You are in ANI, which hints you were looking for a block. But you did not say. Why should we have to guess? Maybe you just wanted someone to talk to the editor? I did. You had a ban discussion,a nd told the editor to stop doing certain things. Now you are bringing something else up. Fair enough, but they deserve a warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  You asked why venue matters. ANI is specifically a place to ask for admin actions. What admin action are you requesting? A topic ban is NOT an admin action.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Well I came here because I thought he was violating his topic ban which obviously would have resulted in a block. And the fact that he and I were both blocked for 3 days is enough of a warning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Ryulong how would power rangers work without size changing monsters? What does Ultraman do? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not relevant to this discussion, CensoredScribe. And learn to indent FFS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose He didn't violate any rule, he not creating new categories, only adding to existing ones. Are the examples listed valid edits? I don't know enough about most of the series to comment. I believe Ultraman has constant size changing in that work of fiction, having the capsule monsters that the guy who made Pokemon said inspired him. So that would be a valid category there. Dream Focus 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  The issue with WP:DEFINING was problematic beyond his creation of new categories and was brought up by SummerPhD in the previous thread and one before that and tons of sections on his user talk. Simply banning him from making new categories without discussing them beforehand has not solved the issue with his complete lack of understanding of WP:DEFINING and the evidence that he is competent enough to edit, something brought up in both threads.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Time to close? I've contributed to the discussion so I am not comfortable closing it, but it is now clear that the original request was for a block, and there's no support for a block. There may be reasons to consider modifying the ban, but I'd like to see clearer identifications of the problems, and continued violation before even considering a ban. If that happens, propose a ban at AN. Can we close this?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No... A, you misunderstand the venue issue above, both AN and ANI have served both roles repeatedly, and B, there's a rough consensus now for the wider ban. Closing now would be a disservice to enough discussion to see if an slternative is supported. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to change the rules to allow ban discussions here, then we need to change the rules first. Please see the note on Wp:An

Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals,(emphasis added)

Note the absence of such language on Wp:ANI Do we mean what we say, or not?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Phil, See: Wikipedia:CBAN#Community bans and restrictions. To quote:

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

The "preferred" is and has been in theory rather than in practice. ANI has seen half plus epsilon of such discussions since CBAN was first permitted. This is not unusual or against policy or precedent... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we totally ignore the longstanding process, and allow a topic ban discussion, I do not envy the closer.

• User:TParis proposes prohibiting "mass-changes, mass-additions, mass-deletions..." without defining "mass". The diffs show examples of up to three. Adding three categories to one article constitutes "mass-additions" Seriously?
• User:Dougweller supports a topic ban but defines it differently than TP.
• User:Lukeno94 supports a topic ban but doesn't specify which of the two options are supported.
• User:The Bushranger supports a topic ban, but words it differently than any listed above.

So the first task of the closer is to figure out which topic ban is being supported.

The second challenge for the closer is to confirm that the editor has been sufficiently warned.

The editor was given a topic ban on 6 February. There is a single edit after that date identifying issues with categorization. Are we seriously about to enact a topic ban on the basis of one warning? Seriously, what is the harm in explaining to the editor what edits are problematic, and considering a ban if editing behavior does not change?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I was supporting User:TParis's proposal with the alternative of being banned from all category work. I understood "He may add-remove categories from any one article that he is focused on editing specifically." as defining mass, my wording means basically the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller is correct, I was very specific that CS can edit a single article and add cats. But he cannot make mass changes to many different articles to add a bunch of cats. That editing is where he becomes problematic.--v/r - TP 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A note: Topic ban proposals are regularly held here, as are community bans; it is the latter that are technically supposed to be primarily noted on the "regular" AN. As to the editor being sufficiently warned, the last ANI thread should show that. I support a complete topic ban from anything to do with categories primarily, and anything leading up to that on a secondary basis. To resume being disruptive immediately after that thread, it doesn't matter how many times it happened, it needs to be stopped from happening again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand what's wrong with the fifth cited edit. CensoredScribe put Honey, I Blew Up the Kid in Category:Giants in film. Ryulong reverted this. [109] Now even I've seen that one - the kid is a giant in that, isn't he? I see he also removed the category from Attack of the 50 Foot Woman,^[110] and the two edit warred (as on some other pages) for some time, but there a third party eventually reinserted it. I mean, what's the explanation for how this isn't a case of Giants in film? Wnt (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That was my original thought, but it is a new category, which I believe was covered under the topic ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I see an edit history for this category going back to 2012. Wnt (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't research it, but I looked at the edit and saw the cat at the bottom of the page in red. I believe Category:Giants in film exists, but the edit was to add Category:Giants in films (one letter difference). I do not know whether it was a typo, or whether the editor attempted to create a new cat which turns out to be close to an existing one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm done adding categories; all categories need to have some kind of definition as to how much of the work needs to be dedicated to a concept for it to be defining of that work. An element only appearing at the climax would still be important to the plot even if it has relatively little screen time. I will post on the categories for discussion what the definition of defining should be. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Constant comments like these from CensoredScribe show that he is not aware what WP:DEFINING is and a ban regarding all categories is necessary. He has been told repeatedly that simply because something happens within one episode it does not mean that the whole of the TV show falls within that category.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(UTC)

CensoredScribe's discussion of the issue attempts to define how much screen time an element need have to be a "defining" element. This is after repeated attempts to explain that we need secondary sources using the element as defining[111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122]etc. To be fair, CS started most of these talk threads. However, that's pretty much all CS did: start the thread and abandon it. As a result, my comments are repetitious. One-sided conversations are not my specialty. I don't think CS "gets" that we want verifiable characteristics that reliable sources say are defining. More to the point, I don't see any indication that CS can "get" it at the moment. As I was probably too involved in this mess at the beginning, I'm not giving my mop-and-bucket-less opinion on a topic ban. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for CensoredScribe from anything remotely having to do with categories. Enough is enough is enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban for CensoredScribe from anything remotely having to do with categories. Edits like this [123] show an inability to understand WP categorization and to work constructively with other editors. Ryūlóng may have been a bit over-hasty at times, but CS is the underlying problem here. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You may want to make it more clear that even adding a category requires a reference; as I have never seen a category with a reference tag directly following it on any page before. I assume you want an acclaimed critic or academic scholar saying something was defining like I did with Superman the unauthorized biography which supports the idea he is a vigilante with a reference to the comic in question. Also, I would like to note that only on my talk page not on an ANI discussion has someone mentioned Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories which would have been more useful for this kind of discussion than categories for discussion. Cfd specifically does not mention the word creation; finding the proper place to propose categories took much longer than I expected and no one was willing to help me. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh my god, CensoredScribe just stop. If you are not banned from adding categories to pages as is the current consensus here, any category that is added to a page must be corroborated by the article's content and be considered a defining aspect of the work. Just because one character grows 50 feet tall in one single part of a work of fiction does not mean the whole work of fiction meets the "Size change in fiction" requirements. Just because one fictional character is enslaved for a very small portion of its existence does not mean that character can be considered a "fictional slave". If what you want to categorize the article is not mentioned in the article or by any reputable sources, then don't put it into that category. It's just common sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sock of banned editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wotan_Condemns_Lesbianism (talk · contribs)

It can only be a sock of Moses_Condemns_Lesbianism (talk · contribs)

If it's not, he certainly wants us to think so. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And if he's not, he's still a troll-only account. Feel free to notify him with a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:62.140.132.32 and User:84.24.199.150

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Keep removing Notability and COI templates from Dayhaps Calendar. I suspect that they are connected with the company in question (both IPs are from Netherlands). Requesting block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchestnykh (talk • contribs) 09:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Their interaction with the article is well-within what would be considered normal. I also think the COI template is undeserved given the contribution pattern of the article

Best way to deal with the notability issue, in my opinion, would be to nominate the article for deletion on the basis of notability. If it survives, it's notable. If it doesn't it's gone. --Tóraí (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I withdraw my block request and will nominate the article for deletion. Dchestnykh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help, please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A new experience. Having just welcomed a new user called "5Bengal", I was quickly menaced on my talk page, and then again. I have no idea what enraged him/her and I do not feel able to deal with it. Moonraker (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Subsequently this user removed two-thirds of the contents of History of Islam without any explanation. I have rolled the edit back but have not left a warning about it. Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Those kinds of attacks are utterly unacceptable. I have blocked the user for 1 month and warned him/her that if they repeat this behavior they will be blocked indefinitely. --Tóraí (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Truthrus33: Repeated COPYVIO violations, edit warring, and generally inappropriate behavior

User:Truthrus33 arrived yesterday and has already established a pattern of inappropriate behavior. They claim to be a friend/fan of actress Hunter Tylo, and have five times in the last 21 hours wiped out most of Tylo's article and replaced it with cut-and-pastes of copyrighted/unlicensed material from Tylo's promotional biography -- obviously in violation of copyright policy, 3RR, as well as plainly inappropriate for a BLP. Despite warnings from me and notice from User:This lousy T-shirt, they have repeated their behavior with increasingly aggressive edit summaries (and uncivil comments on their talk page). They also apparently rather strongly dislike another actress, Katherine Kelly Lang, and are intent on inserting content into that article emphasizing her appearance in a non-notable film that they described (without sourcing) as "softcore porn" -- although IMDB calls it a "TV movie." This is not appropriate behavior, even if they are a new editor -- a dubious claim, since they're already making noise on their talk page about administrator action and alleging stalking. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And now indefinite due to the legal threats. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And I've just been called away so if anyone wants to make changes to the block feel free. Don't wait for me to get back. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

He may have a point about Katherine Kelly Lang's article being a copy of her website.[124]. Dougweller (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a not-so-official site, with the bio likely copied from our article (which is, I don't deny, rather lousy). An earlier version of it is clearly a cut-and paste from our article, complete with nonfunctional footnote numbers [125]. See [126], the twitter feed of a European fan of US soaps who claims this and other "official" sites as her own work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Should we consider putting usernames with the word "Truth" in the list of "potentially disruptive usernames"? Most of these users seem to be disruptive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the material in her, Lang, bio has been in our article since 2004. Hard to tell who is copying who as the Wayback Machine hasn't archived that page. There is a contact email for the site there and I've asked them who has copied who. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I Waybacked the front page of the site and found a link to an earlier version of the bio that's clearly cut-and-pasted from our article, as I note above. I did a quick check for sources this morning, but didn't spot that page because I somehow managed to Google one of the very few phrases ("the love interest of Alabama lead singer Randy Owen") that's not on "Lang's" page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I'm pretty sure that Lang's site copied Wikipedia (which is, interestingly, a copyvio on their part as they haven't attributed accordingly). Compare our version from July 2012 to theirs; looks like they copied it over wholesale (note the in-line citations that weren't removed). m.o.p 22:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Strange, I wonder why Wayback wouldn't work for me. Anyway it looks that way and the contact name for the site is the one in the Twitter account linked above. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Lang page has been restructured; it now uses php code rather than simple hyperlinks. Older versions of the bio page therefore have different URLa than the current page, and Wayback can't link them automatically. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I just received an email from the woman mentioned in the Twitter account who runs the site about Katherine Kelly Lang. They took over the site from the previous operator and weren't aware that it was the same as the one Wikipedia. They have offered to either change the material or credit Wikipedia. So I'll ask them to put up the usual credit. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Kevin Gorman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kevin Gorman has repeatedly accused me of gravedancing over the suicide of a Wikipedian I have no knowledge of, most recently here, where he says "Accusing Eric of gravedancing was not a wise choice on my part ... [but] I'm not going to apologize because I am far from convinced that it was not an accurate description of his behavior." If that's not a personal attack worthy of a block then I don't know what is, far worse than calling someone a wikilawyer or a sycophant in my book. I have not posted a notification of this thread on his talk page because he has forbidden me to edit his talk page. Eric Corbett 21:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The conduct of Kevin through the whole incident has been appalling and an example of how an administrator ought not to behave, and the fact that he still clings to the idea that you were gravedancing and that it was somehow a BLP violation is absurd, but I think your conduct has not been blameless either, Eric. I don't think that any use of administrative tools is wise on this matter. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin needs to follow the same rules that the rest of us are expected to do, unless you're arguing that different rules apply to admins? Eric Corbett 22:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Come off it Eric. You know full well that you've said worse about other Wikipedia contributors (and yes, so have I, before anyone else points it out...). If it isn't true, ignore it.

(for the sake of formality, I'll notify Kevin Gorman) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Consider for a moment if you will the morality of that statement. Eric Corbett 22:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Already done :P Ross HillTalk to me! 22:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

So all we have to wait for now is all the reasons why admins don't get blocked for personal attacks but regular editors do. Eric Corbett 22:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well you aren't an admin and you have made personal attacks. You should be blocked right now by your logic. Ross HillTalk to me! 22:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman judged the situation wrongly from his very first post on Jimbo's page and has compounded it by accusing Eric of things he didn't do. Something worth considering here is that a major gripe of Eric's is that policy is applied unevenly. If for once justice was seen to be done who knows what the result might be....... J3Mrs (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

[Multi-edit conflict. I began writing when Ross Hill, 22:35 10 February was the most recent comment] I assume you're talking about the things in "A a day of kindness, fairness and understanding" as of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=594628755. If not, please tell me, and when you raise another ANI thread, please link to the page where the discussion happened. I see the statements beginning with "When did WP become a psychiatric hospice?", "I wasn't at all sorry", "I was simply making the point", "This topic is actually a disgrace", "Strangely enough I don't care for your tone either", and "Try reading again". Which of those is the origin of the dispute? I can see contention over whether the last two are WP:CIVIL-compliant, but the fourth is a meta-comment not worthy of complaints, the third is explaining the second, the first is a rather basic and should-be-obvious statement, and the second is the only thing that might warrant this kind of reaction. Unless John was your father, I see no reason to object to the second, and if no reason to object to the second, no reason to object to any of these. Kevin's not abusing any admin tools (anyone could say what he's said), but I can't imagine a good reason for him to be harassing Eric over these comments, unless something else has been said or done that I've not seen. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, technically anyone can say: I will be monitoring this thread for violations of Wikipedia policies, including those that deal with the recently deceased, and will be acting with a heavy degree of WP:IAR. I will be actioning any exceptionally offensive comments in the rest of this thread, regardless of who they originate from. and anyone can say: If you post any further material that can be construed as violating WP:BLP/WP:BDP, I will be banning you from that discussion for its duration, enforced by block if necessary. as part of an AE notice, but they're only really meaningful coming from an administrator, so saying that they didn't use the tools is not wholly convincing to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• What if, out respect for the deceased, this issue is dropped instead of dragged out so publicly? -- John Reaves 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  What deceased? Eric Corbett 23:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  The deceased at the basis of this dispute. Is dragging this out going to achieve any thing? We all know the possible outcomes: a.) there is a lengthy discussion with no real resolution or b.) someone get blocked and then immediately unblocked (which results in another instance of the first scenario). -- John Reaves 23:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I've got absolutely no idea who you're talking about. When have I ever commented on this speficic suicide? Eric Corbett 23:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Eric, when was the last time you were blocked for a personal attack and it actually stuck? Blocks are preventative, not punitive. You've brought me to ANI over a comment I made in the past that I have already stated I would not repeat. I do agree with the suggestion you made in your original post here not entirely sure what constitutes a blockable personal attack. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. You've brought me to ANI over a comment I made in the past that I have already stated I would not repeat. You've exhibited a consistent pattern of personal attacks and civility violations extending multiple years; blocking you would be more than justifiable as preventative. I'm headed to an outreach event so I can't compile them now, but I'd be happy to put up fifty diffs in the last couple months of you violating NPA or civility when I return. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Hard to keep track, but let's see how long a block on you for personal attacks might stick. Eric Corbett 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's not "hard" to keep track of that, here's Kevin's block log. We all have one. Even you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps not hard to keep track of it then, but hard to make sense of it. Eric Corbett 23:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × multiple)So to summarize: one Wikipedian has committed suicide, another informs us their father committed suicide after murdering their step-mother, and we're concerned about some less than touchy feely comments on Jimbo's talkpage???? Obviously I'm sad in the vague way one is sad about hearing of a strangers suicide, but if we believe our own content (Suicide), there are over 2,000 / day. Am I too mourn only the 1 of the 2000 who contributed to Wikipedia, because the other 1999 matter less?
I am sorry, I will mourn none until it's someone I know personally, because to mourn each and every death in the world is to stop living. If that makes me an asshole, I'm an asshole.
Or am I to understand someone's pain in dealing with a loved ones suicide is greater because Eric made a gruff comment somewhere on the Internet? NE Ent 23:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I left a comment on Kevin's talk, expressing hope that this dispute would be dropped, but it appears that it has not. Please, let's drop it now. Eric has an understandable point about administrative overreach, and I'm sympathetic to it, but this situation does not call for further administrative action. ANI can provide a drama-fest, but it won't provide any useful administrative sanctions. I've read what Eric said at Jimbo's talk, and I'm heavily inclined to cut Eric some slack for having said what he said there; he had his reasons. But I also think that Kevin believed in good faith that he was seeking respect for a fellow editor who has committed suicide. Kevin seems to me to be making it clear that he is backing off; Eric is asking for too much in insisting on an apology quoting Kevin's statement about not apologizing, as a reason for Kevin to be blocked, and risks looking hypocritical. It's time for everyone to drop the stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Where have you ever seen me asking for an apology from anyone? I simply want to see Kevin blocked for his ongoing personal attacks, as any regular editor would have been by now. Eric Corbett 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

For "gravedancing", which is a term regularly used or misused on Wikipedia to describe User's comment posts? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• To those wondering about the general situation: I'll be dropping a note to arbcom in the near future detailing in greater detail why I did what I did in that thread (I'm not posting it publicly, because it contains sensitive, personal information. I may, after further consultations with people about the appropriateness of disseminating it, share it privately with any interested administrator.) I've posted a general explanation of my actions on my talk page already. To passing by admins... compare the severity of the comment I made that Eric linked to the one he made that I linked. I view it as quite seriously ironic that WP's most consistent violator of our civility and personal attack policies would come here asking for someone else to be sanctioned over a comment like mine, especially given that I've already said I will not repeat it - you know, the whole preventative not punitive thing. It points to ridiculous culture problems that Eric has behaved in the same inappropriate way for years without receiving a significant block - if blocks are intended to be preventative, Eric should be blocked until the point that he explicitly agrees to reform his conduct. And I'm utterly serious in saying that I'm more than willing to compile fifty diffs of Eric's inappropriate behavior from the immediate past in this section if warranted, although I would prefer Eric either receive a commonsense block, or this section be closed without actions and diffs saved for a future RFCU or arbcom case. (And for the record I had no incredibly strong feelings about Eric until reviewing his current comments and past record during this kerfuffle.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  We're at a watershed I think. Either you're blocked or I leave. Eric Corbett 23:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia actually need another thread alternately about and exhibiting Eric's conduct? I think it best expresses respect for everyone, dead and alive, to not further a discussion that nobody expects to get anywhere. Pakaran 23:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point? I think we actually do need threads about Eric. We have editor retention problems, editor recruitment problems, and massive demographic problems - and those are all actively hindered by the fact that we have editors who consider them above WP:NPA and regularly go around telling people they are fucking idiots who should go fuck themselves. Eric's behavior is a small part of our overall issues, but if we want to not fail as an encyclopedia, sooner or later we're going to need to confront the issue of vested contributors like Eric head on. The No Asshole Rule does a really good job of explaining why allowing people who are incredibly competent at their jobs (or in this case, at their volunteer encyclopedia writing,) but who don't adhere to behavioral standards to continue to be part of an organization contributes to organizational failure. To be clear, I'm not calling Eric an asshole, that's just the name of the book. That said, I would fully agree that this thread is not a needed one. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point, please let's drop this. (If Eric wants to leave, that's his business. If Kevin wants to open something else, somewhere else, that's his business.) If there is any lesson to be drawn, it's that life's too short for arguments like this. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a problem for our community really. There are lots of other people who would be writing good content if Eric and other s hadn't driven them away. That said, if Eric had a real grievance against you, he'd be filing a RFAr or RFC/U, not whini complaining on here about a threat, never enacted, to ban him from a user_talk thread on which the relevant user still has yet to himself comment. -- Pakaran 00:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you accused (or appeared to accuse) another editor of celebrating the death of a fellow Wikipedian. That was a horribly inappropriate thing to do, and the proper response upon having that pointed out to you is not to start building a case for what an asshole the other guy is, but to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to accuse him of that" if it was inadvertent or "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that" if it was intentional, and then drop the issue. Making it into a competition of who's said the worst things and how often is not in anybody's interests. 28bytes (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV-pushing by Psychologicaloric

Psychologicaloric (talk · contribs) has been pov-pushing at Zoroastrianism, downplaying its influence on the Abrahamic religions by making unsourced claims counter to academic sources, and by misrepresenting properly sourced information. Although not making outright reverts, it does border on manual edit warring as well.

• [127]
• [128]
• [129]
• [130]
• [131]
• [132]

He has altered his edits the the barest imitation of acknowledgement to the messages I've left him. Some of his edit summaries, about changing druj into asha (Zoroastrian terms for existential falseness and truth, respectively) strike me as fundamentalist POV-pushing, akin to an evangelical Christian removing or distancing references to Christianity in the Mormonism article while using edit summaries about "changing heresy into gospel." I've tried to get across to him that Wikipedia is not the place for that sort of thing, but not everyone who can hear listens, especially in this case. It is because of this POV pushing that I have not merely brought it to 3RRNB.

Some older edits indicate that censorship may be a problem for Psychologicaloric.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I reported him via huggle to WP:AIV, though I'm not sure if this is the correct place for his edit warring or not. It's worth noting that he has since moved his discussion to the talk page. I'm not sure if I was correct in allowing that report to go through, but seeing as this incident is now here, I don't know if that should be removed or not. NicatronTg (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't quite assume it's vandalism just yet, though. He seems to be operating in good faith, but a fundamentalist and biased one that assume religious doctrine trumps any verifiable source. Despite taking it to the talk page, he is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT, refusing to bring in sources, merely saying that all academic sources are wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

White supremacist propaganda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Kohelet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gang rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a doubly ugly topic. User:Kohelet has repeatedly [133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140] tried to add content to gang rape that says "According to data from National Crime Victimization Survey, blacks committed 10,000 gang rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, but there wasn't a single case of white-on-black gang rape." This was originally lifted from a white supremacist website. The source he's trying to cite does not verify the statement. Many different editors have reverted Kohelet but he refuses to listen to reason. Could an uninvolved administrator please stop this racist POV pushing? It's not a joke, or a debatable point. For the record, I am not going to revert him again on this article.

Other evidence of racial POV pushing by Kohelet includes: [141][142]. This is particularly odious: [143]. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC) and 01:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. It's disturbing this person has edited for as long as he has. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he had couple of good edits. But he would edit war even after warning was issued, he regarded such warning as WP:NPA. OccultZone (Talk) 02:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP adding references to self, contrary to recently closed RFC

I was the uninvolved closer at a request at WP:ANRFC on the Firewall (physics) article. The RFC was heavily socked and meatpuppeted. I closed as "no consensus for inclusion" regarding giving credit to a particular scientist (Winterberg) for the original idea of the discovery. An IP claiming to be Winterberg is now repeatedly reinserting refs to himself in the article claiming credit, and saying that the consensus is irrelevant because it was done by non-physicists. Could someone semi-the article and block the IP? [144] [145] [146] Gaijin42 (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Article protected by Ohnoitsjamie. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Momento appeal

I have appealed an indefinite topic ban for "persistent battleground behaviour"at WP:AE.[147] Regrettably, after five days only one admin has commented on the diffs supplied. Could some uninvolved admins please go to WP:AE and look at my appeal and comment as to whether there is any evidence presented there that shows "persistent battleground behaviour" justifying an indefinite topic ban.[148] Thanks.MOMENTO (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We cannot review arbitration enforcement actions here. You'll need to file an Arbitration clarification case for the committee to review.--v/r - TP 05:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure you can. Arbcom enforcement decisions can be appealed to the AE noticeboard, to another community noticeboard, or to Arbcom. Risker (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering there is a current request about this, it may not be appropriate to have ANI and ArbCom looking it at once. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to the editors above for the lack of clarity. I have rewritten my opening paragraph to make it clear that I am asking if some Admins can go to WP:AE and look at my appeal and give an opinion.MOMENTO (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh, so inappropriately canvassing. That'll go well. Also - do not EVER edit something that has already been replied to - you then change the meaning of all the replies, User: Momento ES&L 12:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing? This whole page is about asking people to get involved elsewhere. And I believe my comment saying that "I have rewritten my opening paragraph to make it clear etc" would explain any discrepancy between the new paragraph and the kind and considerate replies I received. The original is available for those that care to look.MOMENTO (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Repeated addition of factual inaccuracies

User:Moderate Intensity Operations has repeatedly added fake information to The British Soap Awards:

• [149]
• [150]
• [151]
• [152]
• [153]
• [154]

...and several more of the same variety. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, the user continuously adds a table for 2014 award winners, but there have been no awards in 2014. The source given is simply the 2013 winners and the info in the new table seems to be completely made up. -- Fyrael (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Have you considered using Twinkle to Welcome them using the one specifically related to requiring reliable sources? I see a crapload of warnings, but not a single welcome and introduction to the rules. Have you even tried discussing rather than templating? ES&L 12:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

When the user is intentionally adding information that they know to be false, it seems like it goes a little beyond informing them that they need proper sources. Also, yes, I created a section on the talk page of the article to enable discussion, albeit a little later than I should have. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Also, not all of this user's edits are bad. This edit was a good one, correcting the year the awards began (infobox had said 1998; he brought it into agreement with the prose of the article as 1999). I've thanked the editor for that one. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and OWN violations

Background: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 69#Phineas Gage.

See User talk:John#Gage and EEng and User talk:EEng#Query.

Long-term problem: As I see it, EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has taken ownership of our article on Phineas Gage, an interesting and fairly well known case of 19th-century neurological injury. EEng is affiliated with one of the sources he insists on promoting at the article (hence last year's COIN discussion, after which my understanding was that EEng agreed to back off). EEng has certain very specific ideas about what does and does not belong in the article, and on how it should be written and formatted. Those of us who have tried to improve the article have been sent away with a telling off. I long ago gave up trying to help on the article. User:ChrisGualtieri has persisted (against my advice) and his reward has been to be on the receiving end of this diatribe. I think using language like Again, as seen above you are either a hopeless incompetent or a troll. I won't respond to your posts in the future, except as necessary to prevent their misleading editors who may not understand the nature of you activities here. (and forgive me for reproducing the formatting) is beyond the pale. I tried to discuss this with EEng at his user talk but he does not wish to. I know that User:Tryptofish has been trying to mediate at article talk, but I think this is beyond the power of one admin to solve, hence my bringing it here. I urge you to read the whole section to get a picture of what has been going on for months. It has to stop.

Requested actions: Short-term I think a short block is in order for EEng. Long-term I do not see this issue being solved without a topic ban; previous exhortations have not been successful. My own perception is that Chris would be fine if EEng was not misbehaving, but it may be that his behaviour also merits attention. Interested to see what others think. --John (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I just read that god-awful long COIN thread and I don't see where EEng says he will back off. Can you quote something specific?--v/r - TP 18:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one of the problems in understanding this matter is the extreme verbosity involved. I admit I can't find it either. Maybe this is what I was thinking of? Certainly I was aware of a period when EEng stepped back from the article and allowed others to edit it without belittling them. But going by Chris's comments on my talk we seem to be back where we were. --John (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

John, thanks for the !promotion, but I'm actually not "one administrator". While I make no claims about my abilities to single-handedly take care of the dispute, I want to advise strongly against blocking anyone. Yet. It's sufficiently complicated that a block would not prevent anything, maybe just postpone it. Really, this is not a block type of situation. There needs to be more discussion, and then evaluation of who does or does not play nice with what comes out of that discussion. If problems continue after that, then we will be in topic ban territory. What I would welcome now would be more eyes on Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Gosh , sorry Tryptofish, I honestly thought you were an admin. FWIW your commentary in trying to resolve this was more than worthy of adminship. If not a block then I think we would need a topic ban. I still think the prolonged nastiness from EEng is blockworthy. Obviously I agree about the more eyes suggestion. --John (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

John, have you looked at whether EEng is right? I havent been following the situation for the last two weeks, and wont have time to catch up until tomorrow, but from what I have seen it is User:ChrisGualtieri who is regularly misusing sources, making a mess of both article and the discussion page in the process of the Tendentious editing. While labeling someone a troll is not OK, neither is Chris' misuse of sources, and Chris' bull-in-china-shop approach to 'fixing' this article, which has been going on for months. I agree with Tryptofish that the situation calls for more eyes rather than blocks at this stage, but it is more eyes from people who can (and will) read sources that is needed. I saw that this topic went to WP:DRN very recently...? How did that go? I dont see it mentioned in this ANI. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The DRN was closed with the discussion being handed over to me for the time being, and with a recommendation to hand it over to the Mediation Committee if I cannot help. When I look at the comments of the two "John"s here, it seems to me that John places too much of the blame on EEng, and John Vandenberg places too much of the blame on Chris. That's all the more reason not to move too hastily to blocking anyone here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• A block of EEng would do no good, but the problems are in part because EEng works for/with Macmillan and Macmillan's text is the issue. EEng has self-disclosed his identity on his user page as: ".. the second author of Reference #20, and first author mentioned in Note Z, of this version of the article on Phineas Gage." Which self-discloses EEng as Lena, Macmillan's co-author and co-researcher. This was a major part of the COIN discussion. Though the issue is not me "mis-reading" the source, but the source itself being actually wrong. I want this error to be noted because it is often repeated and it is in the "only scholarly book on Phineas Gage".Macmillan quite confidently gave May 20 as the date of death. If Macmillan went to such pains to personally examine the documents, specifically indicating May 20th as the date of death, by all means I expected it to be accurate. This as EEng pointed out was completely false, and I guess the cited source never existed in the first place! Macmillan may make errors, contradict himself, Harlow and other sources, but EEng (as a partner) should not be resorting to abusive claims that I am "mentally impaired", "hopelessly incompetent" or "a troll". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"works with/for Macmillan" - wtf. Once more you sound like you dont understand academic publishing at all. My guess is you do know, but you keep digging an ever increasing hole for yourself, with user:John occasionally helping you dig. EEng has a COI with the new material that appeared in one paper. That is all. He does not have a COI with every piece of scholarship by any person he may have copublished a paper with. Tryptofish, you imply that user:John has seriously looked at this issue/topic - I have seen no evidence of that - I have seen evidence to the contrary[Im on a phone atm so cant put together the diffs, but the last COIN discussion is an example of John demonstrating this.] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear then since it seems you did not read the initial post here. 1) User:EEng has a conflict of interest in editing this article. (See the COIN report for details.) This is not ok. 2) User:EEng has become increasingly abusive over the last months. (See the two diffs I supplied.) This is not ok either. 3) There may or may not be a problem with User:ChrisGualtieri; I don't know. 4) Other than that I do not hold any strong opinions about anything related to this matter. It would be great if people commenting here could focus on these problems and how we should solve them. Again, if not a block, I think a topic ban is required but I am certainly open to other suggestions. --John (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Newbie quickly racking up infractions...how to deal gently?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A newbie, User:F.Tromble, is engaging in a number of both subtle and obvious personal attacks, edit warring and forum shopping. Within only two weeks of account creation, they have fallen into conflict with four established editors.
However, per WP:DONTBITE many more serious solutions may be unfair at this point. Upon review, WP:AN3 and WP:RFC/USER seem too harsh this early while WP:3O and WP:DR/N seem geared solely toward content disputes. Arbitration is a last step and per WP:DISPUTE, asking for guidance at ANI seemed the least painful solution. To avoid making this too long, I will post the diffs showing the behavior in question in a collapsable table.

Infractions
Incivility at Template talk:Sunni Islam: 06:34, 10 February 2014 - user accused me of being a member of a religious movement I don't belong to and pushing POV, original research and fringe theories to support such a view across "other pages at Wikipedia."
Incivility at Talk:Seraya Shapshal: 10:04, 7 February 2014 - user assumes (F.Tromble's own words) that User:Toddy1 is POV pushing without prior interaction.
Personal attack and forum shopping at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions: *11:55, 10 February 2014 - sarcastically referring to another editor as a "Bigwig" in the section title and starting with "This one takes the biscuit. I have noticed some misuse of edit summaries by people who apparently should know better." User:AddWittyNameHere pointed out that in the mentioned case, F.Tromble was also guilty of a rude edit summary comment by WittyName here as well as an ad-hominem personal attack other comment here. Rather testy comment directed at User:Неполканов at 13:59, 8 February 2014, all in response to Неполканов's brief request for reliable sources and discussion at the talk page.
Misrepresentation at User talk:Mark Arsten: 06:08, 10 February 2014 - claims I accused him of edit warring at Template talk:Sunni Islam when that clearly wasn't my intent.
Edit warring at Babai the Great: first edit at 12:59, 29 January 2014 which attempted to give the subject a new name Reverted by Toddy1 at 15:32, 2 February 2014 FTromble reverts at 09:57, 7 February 2014, no further discussion on talk Article reverted back to original version by User:David Biddulph at 14:22, 8 February 2014
Edit warring and dishonesty at Seraya Shapshal: First edit by FTromble at 12:44, 27 January 2014; extremely dishonest edit summary claiming grammatical changes, but the edit made serious unsourced content changes Reverted by Toddy1 at 16:12, 6 February 2014 FTromble reverts at 10:01, 7 February 2014, almost copy pasting Toddy1's own edit summary in a mocking fashion Ftromble gets reverted by User:Неполканов, back to the original version, at 12:18, 7 February 2014
Insults and rejection of mediation at User talk:F.Tromble: I tried to advise the guy on the fact that he has only been editing two weeks yet has already had conflicts with four established editors at 02:39, 9 February 2014 FTromble's response at 19:17, 9 February 2014 simply accuses me of being a blindly devoted religious follower and thinking I have a "divine right" to push "propaganda" and fringe theories I respond at 02:46, 10 February 2014 acknowledging that the passive aggressive comments were noticed and advising him that such behavior won't yield positive results FTromble replies at 05:51, 10 February 2014 by simply saying "peace"; it was after that when he amped up the personal attacks as well as bringing up the edit summary conflict again, despite having earlier been told that his edit summaries at Seraya Shapshal were also insulting.

Now, the editor seems intelligent and has made positive contributions to some areas. The main issue here is that, within only two weeks, they have already committed the infractions mentioned above. Since it seems too early for more drastic measures, what would the protocol be in this case? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Am I allowed to respond to these accusations against me one by one please? THere is some misrepresentation of the facts here. F.Tromble (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

By all means do, but I recommend you be brief. There are a lot of diffs to look at. Blackmane (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. In an area in which I have absolutely no interest or knowledge, I see an editor challenging the status quo in a contentious subject and his apparent "newbie" status being somewhat resented by established editors. Far, far worse passes as civil, non-abuse in most every other area, every single day. Leaky Caldron 10:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:F.Tromble, I wasn't trying to phrase these as accusations. You do make positive contributions and that should be recognized. What I am saying is that you've had some problems early on, and trying to discuss matters with you on your talk page didn't work out. This is an attempt to find an easy solution to the conflict areas as rough early spots like this can snowball; I've seen it happen to new editors and this is an attempt to avoid that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I will be as brief as it is possible to deal with 7 allegations numberer 1 to 7 to make it easier for reference. Perhaps in haste, or maybe just accidentally, Mezzo has skewed the chronology a bit, but things become clearer if we look at things in the correct order of events which would be 5, 6, 2, 7, 4, 1, and finally 3.

5. In this edit I tried to distinguish "the Great" from the other Babai who he opposed by referring to "the Great" the Monk in the text and then as an afterthought before saving I inserted the same phrase at the top of the page to make my edit easier to understand. I only hoped to make things more clear further down the page so that readers would not get confused on such a technicality. I work in the field of religious studies and the confusion between the two Babais is common to non-specialists. If I had intended a name change, surely I would have re-named the page and moved it, but this was absolutely *not* my intention and in fact I get very frustrated by such moves and name changes. Naturally I was upset by the things that user had started to spread about me [155] and perhaps any comment I have made concerning that user which might have hinted at irritation is my reaction to that. If he wants to apologise I am happy to work with him in a supportive manner to improve the very poor conditions of his articles. I did try to re-insert the fact which was removed along with the ill-considered insertion of the alternative name at the beginning but did not kick up any fuss when I was rebuked for my poor solution a few days later after he initiated the campaign to watch my edits having (apparently) been upset by my edit on Shapshal, as will now become clear...

6. Although the second "incident" chronologically it began in response to an edit on Shapshal which I had made prior to the Babai edit.

2. You can see I had previously asked for more info on this POV [156] and had tried to make the related passage in the article more readable [157]. It was immediately reverted by a user [158] accusing me of a dishonest edit summary and making POV changes. He could have chosen to engage in the discussion I had initiated on the topic here but instead immediately started to throw false allegations at me in the edit summary. Seeing he was clearly upset at my attempt I simply assumed that he must have been the one who inserted the POV in the first place and I returned to the discussion board to ask him to talk about it. Mezzo Mezzo says that there was no previous interaction with that user, but as you can see this is simply not the truth of the matter.

7. I think very general comments have been taken too personally here. I ("the guy") just wanted to offer him peace.

4. I naturally thought he was talking about the Template talk:Sunni Islam because I had not interacted with him anywhere else at that point.

1. Is it possible to "accuse" someone of belonging to a religion? I did assume, apparently wrongly to my embarrassment. I did not imagine it would cause offence since it is the religion he was championing. I have apologised for my assumption.

3. I had been thanked for mentioning fish [159] in my last question at the teahouse and thought I had to mention some food item in every question there, hence I started with a Biscuit. The term Big-wig is not defined as having any negative connotations [160] and does not refer to anyone discussed here. Again my very general comment is being taken too seriously.

I genuinely thought MezzoMezzo and I were getting along quite well until after this comment [161]. It seems there is a small degree of "paranoia" or at least suspicion over socks which might be the origin of problems users are having with my challenges. Nevertheless, Mezzo was still being very gentlemanly and cordial with me [162] prior to the other User's comment stoked unnecessarily the embers of Mezzo's bad past experience [163] to make a fire which wasn't there. As I am about to post this message I see a big orange notice about informing other users being discussed if I am starting the discussion about them, since I am not starting the discussion I am assuming all users mentioned by Mezzo have been informed. But if I am interpreting this notice wrongly please be gentle enough to let me know and I will do as I am instructed. I hope this report against me will be seen as a case of misunderstandings and not have a negative impact on my future reputation here at wiki. Many thanks for this opportunity to explain things the way I see them. I am open to advise and do hope to be able to patch things up with Mezzo. F.Tromble (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• The best way to deal with this would be mentoring. F.Tromble, why did you decide to respond to things in such a higgledy-piggledy manner? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would very much appreciate a mentor. Yes please! May I ask why you thought my response is higgledy-piggledy please? I have a small amount of legal training and was always taught to present facts in a chronological way. Thus I sorted out the chronology for readers to better understand the precise sequence of events. Is that what you are asking about sir? F.Tromble (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, in some cases a chronological response is desirable, but in this case, it is simply confusing, and it would've been better to respond to the evidence in the order that the evidence was presented. As you have had legal training, surely you should realize that the best way to present a case is to make it as simple as possible? If you want further information on finding a mentor, you will find Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area and Wikipedia:Mentorship to be a useful read. (And no, I'm not offering my services as a mentor, as there are only a few less suitable people out there for such a task!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you found it confusing. In answer to your question, if I did not get the chronology right from the outset I would have become persona non grata for at least a month lol. The first thing in any case was always to establish the correct sequence of events. Anyway it was not the career for me. :) Thank you very much for the links Luken94. F.Tromble (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A third editor elsewhere has spontaneously mediated some of these issues elsewhere. Based on discussion here and at User:F.Tromble's talk page, the issue seems to have been resolved and the answer to my original question - what to do in this case - seems to be outside involvement but in an informal setting. This can probably be closed now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iago Falque - User Gringoladomenega

In the article "Iago Falque", we had an edit war, I have trying to discuss reasonably, giving my reasons. The user has continued to edit in the article of "Iago Falque", but do not reply to my requests to reach an agreement.

I need to know what to do.

I showed ​​a test, where the person itself explains how it should be your surname I think you can not find anything better than that.

Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gringoladomenega#Iago_Falque_or_Iago_Falqu.C3.A9

Reference:

• http://www.rayovallecano.es/-/falque-el-eslogan-dice-juntos-podemos-y-es-asi-video-
• http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/news/newsid/149/889/6/

Thanks, Harpagornis (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:DRN. GiantSnowman 12:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Harpagornis (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsolved severe personal attack on Romanian Wikipedia

Hello, there is a problem that Romanian Wikipedia proved incapable to solve in almost two years (one year and 10 months, to be exact). In march 2012, ro:User:Turbojet threatens ro:User:AdiJapan to tell to AdiJapan's boss that AdiJapan edits Wikipedia while at work. Putting that threat into effect means AdiJapan will have serious problems at work. As a result, AdiJapan doesn't edit Wikipedia in the weekdays, he only edits in the weekends. No more edits while at work.

According to Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery.

Turbojet was blocked indefinitely but after a few days was unblocked in order to give him a chance to defend himself. However he refused to explicitly retract his threat. The subject was opened again in january and february 2014. What we got from Turbojet was that he accepted that the threat was a reaction based on his state of mind at that moment, when he was very angry. However, that leaves space for something like "It was a momentarily reaction but if I get angry again, I can put it into practice".

All we need is for Turbojet to completely, clearly, explicitly and unequivocally retract his threat and to promise he will never put it into effect. It takes him maximum 10 or 20 words. Apologies to Wikipedia (not to AdiJapan) would be welcomed but not necessary. He doesn't want to do that, so the only reasonable option (in my view) is to block him indefinitely. After that, if he decides so, he can appeal the block, retract his threat and get unblocked.

The problem is that the community at the Romanian Wikipedia is not firm enough to face him these two alternatives: retract or be blocked. Therefore I have to appeal here.

The biggest problem (for RO.WP) is not AdiJapan's situation - if he wants to do it, Turbojet can put his threat into effect whenever he decides so, and Wikipedia can do nothing to stop that. We can't do anything for AdiJapan to feel safe editing Wikipedia while at work. The biggest problem is that such actions make editors feel unsafe participating at Romanian Wikipedia. They can feel it like entering in a bad neighborhood, without police, where you can get into big trouble any time, without chances to escape. Wikipedia should prove that such threats are and will be absolutely intolerable and those who create them are not welcomed on the project.

Here you have the log of the events:

• the threat: 30 march 2012
• AdiJapan appeals the community to solve the problem: Turbojet gets blocked and unblocked after 6 days - may 2012
• Turbojet was asked to retract his threat - january 2014 - backup link
• I asked the Romanian Wikipedia to face Turbojet the two options - 6 feburary 2014. No result.

Thank you. —  Ark25  (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• The English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction nor influence on the Romanian Wikipedia ES&L 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, that sounds pretty awful - but there's nothing we can do here. Best option on en.wiki might be to ping Jimbo, but I don't know that you'll have any better results. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Turbojet and AdiJapan (both of whom should have been notified of this thread, btw) are both active on en-wiki (although they haven't interacted much here). I was going to archive this with no action, but I'm wondering whether a threat like that on another wiki could in fact be actionable here, insofar as it involves a personal attack by one en-wiki contributor against another. IIRC, we have in the past taken administrative action for off-wiki harassment at a certain un-nameable Wiki-criticism site. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Where should I report the problem, then? Directly to Jimmy Wales? Isn't there a central place to report problems about any Wikipedia? Imagine, for example on "Romulan Wikipedia", people send death threats, post fascist propaganda, etc and the community there doesn't react, what happens? The managers of the whole Wikipedia website (www.wikipedia.org) must react, either by blocking the corresponding users, or closing the "Romulan Wikipedia" - that's how I imagine things should work. Isn't there a managing team for Wikipedia? Do I have to report directly to the owner (JW)? Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo is definitely one solution, but speaking to the WMF directly may also be a good idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you point on a specific page on WMF for that? Because I can't find one. Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

When you open the ANI edit window a big pink window appears above it with some contact details. I'm not entirely sure this one is appropriate but emergency@wikimedia.org maybe the one you want. if not, they should be able to direct you to the correct one. Blackmane (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

How about simply forgetting about this "threat" that allegedly happened in some other wiki nearly two years ago? Why is any retractarea formală needed? Since when it has been persecution (term used in our WP:NPA, which itself might not be interpreted exactly identically in Ro Wp than here BTW) to take action for cause against employees who surf in the 'net when they should be working? This is just silly and unnecessary drama. I didn't bother to machine translate the linked pages but it seems that User:Ark25 has been keeping this very old matter still current and the discussion there appears to be on Godwin's Law tangent with Wikipedia editors compared to Galileo before the Holy See. I can understand the meaning of la activitatea lui de troll profesionist in [164] but I did not quite catch who this comment is referring to. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 16:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The comment is referring to Ark25, which is accused of digging up this issue in order to move the attention of the community away from its link-adding activities, which are frowned upon by some users. I have no real reason to believe the accusations are true, though.--Strainu (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been notified about this discussion. I don't really have much to add, Ark25 has pretty much said everything that was to be said. In the interest of the Romanian Wikipedia I believe the community there had better deal with Turbojet decisively, otherwise this will create the precedent for a anyone being able to threat anyone with little or no consequences.

His threat affects me on en.wp as well. Because of the threat, for the last two years I've had to drastically reduce my contribution here, just as I have on ro.wp and all other Wikimedia projects I had had some activity on (Commons, ja.wp, fr.wp).

However, I am fully aware that blocking Turbojet (anywhere or everywhere) wouldn't help me at all, as he can still carry out his threat as soon as I restart editing form work. So whatever you do, it won't matter to me personally, but only to the user communities. — AdiJapan 16:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think such threats create an unwelcome chilling effect (akin to WP:LEGAL) but they don't seem to be a violation of the section you quoted. Perhaps it will help if you emphasise the key bits more: "political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others". That section is clearly intended to deal with stuff like someone telling an employer about their employee's sexuality or religion or the political party they support or whatever when that may expose the employee to discrimination or worse. You could perhaps include if the employer is likely to discriminate against that person if they edit wikipedia (whatever they edit) even outside work but that's about the limit. There is no way that getting in trouble for editing wikipedia at work when your employer doesn't welcome it (I presume we're even talking about when the employee is supposed to be working not during their break) can be considered equivalent to such persecution. In fact I would go so far as to say it's offensive to suggest it is equivalent.

Edit: Just noticed jni said the same thing. I should add I'm not saying people should be editing wikipedia when they're being paid by an employer to work. It simply that I don't think people should use such threats to get their way presuming that's what happened here. I would note if this wasn't the intention but instead Turbojet was concerned about AdiJapan editing from work for some other reason, e.g. AdiJapan is a government employee for a government which affects Turbojet, or TurboJet owns shares or works for the same company, or even if TurboJet simply morally disagrees with AdiJapan editing while they are being paid to work; then I don't think it's any of our business. Of course in such a case Turbojet shouldn't be 'threatening' AdiJapan but 'warning' them. (It gets more complicated if the editing is happening at work but during a break rather than when the employee is being paid to work.)

Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There are many many people in this world who have a job where they only have to attend people (clients or not) when necessary. Other than that, they have nothing to do. For example, I heard in South Korea people never retire. Instead, when they get older, they get jobs like guarding an apartment building - every apartment building has a lobby with something similar with a hotel's reception. They open a door when they have to (pushing a button) and things like that. Most of the time at work, all they have to do is to be there. Therefore they can edit Wikipedia in the time for which they are paid to do their job. There are many other jobs like that and I suspect many Wikipedia editors are have such jobs and are already editing Wikipedia while at work. AdiJapan said that editing Wikipedia while at work doesn't affect his productivity at work and we have to assume he said that in good faith. It's an offense to dictate to someone to waste their free time at work by looking at walls or something like that, suggesting that using that free time to edit Wikipedia is cheating their boss.

What Turbojet did was blackmail. The words you highlighted included other persecution, which can include, helping a boss who try to find any excuse to hares his employees. This issue is not about Turbojet or AdiJapan, but it's all about Wikipedia editors who should feel safe and should know that severe attacks are handled properly when they occur. The issue evaded me for a long time and it came into my attention just recently by pure chance, and I think it should resolved at least now. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if the battle lines were drawn here years earlier: [165]. It is also natural reaction to go forum shopping off-wiki against someone who said pentru in ones desysopping: [166]. My troll detector might not be correctly calibrated to Romanian frequencies, but this dispute seems to be a continuation of who knows what grievances accumulated over the years. I think this can be closed here, as it is not our duty to start meddling into someone else's wheel warring until it really spills into English Wikipedia. User:Ark25 has raised this in Meta as well (and likely elsewhere): [167] jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

When I was blocked by Turbojet, I well deserved it (I called a group of editors "fascists", one of them threatened to sue Wikipedia, Turbojet reacted in panic and he blocked me quickly). My relation with him was very good for long after that incident, he helped me many times in finding information and I still have a good opinion about him. He and many others can confirm that. Also, recently my administration rights were removed (Turbojet voted "against" me) because I didn't move a finger to do an administrator's job. The community asked me to become administrator, hoping that I will do administration work, but they failed miserably :P. If administration rights would have meant anything for me, I would have move my behind to at least make it look like I'm interested in it. I know I can become administrator tomorrow if I declare that I want to do an administrator's job. I have no grievances whatsoever about anyone on Wikipedia, in fact, one user there declared that he is my perfect enemy, he is poking me whenever he finds an opportunity, calling me troll, vandal, etc and I keep telling him that I find him entertaining. I have nothing against Turbojet, I only think he should be forced to fully retract his threat (or blocked if he refuses) because we need him in the community.

So, your troll detection programs might be good, but I'm just not the regular Joe that is looking for "power" and gets into gangs and rivalries. I raised the issue at the village pump and then I was pointed to meta. The issue there is about having a central noticeboard in general, not only about this complaint. The users of smaller and not well organized Wikipedias should feel embraced. The warmth, coherence, stability and safety a user finds on English Wikipedia (characteristic for English-speaking communities in general, not only Wikipedia) should be better spilled on the smaller Wikipedias, by making the users feel they can appeal to someone who really understands how things work, in case they need. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely it is a problem of Romanian Wikipedia. I agree that the question be examined by WMF Board. --Turbojet (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Attacks on Kevin Gorman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The debacle above concerning Gorman and his 'gravedancing' allegations has already been closed with no action, so I won't re-hash that entire thread here. However, the discussion has certainly not ended in other areas and unfortunately it is beginning to get out of hand, as evidenced by this vindictive attack by Ihardlythinkso, who calls Kevin a Jerk and questions his competence (particularly his ability to read and write). A similarly unhelpful message from the other side of the spectrum was posted by an IP a few moments ago. I realize that there are a lot of raw emotions flying around, but the nasty attacks are not likely to improve the situation. I don't know that any action (ie. blocks, bans) is necessary yet, but the unhelpful discussion should be shut down. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• As usual Wikipedians are showing the foresight of goldfish. When an Admin makes not only a severe error of judgement, refuses to apologize and then launches a smear campaign on his attackee - all of which is seemingly condoned by his peers (why else has he not been desysopped) then all hell is bound to break loose. Why is anyone surprised?  Giano  16:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I don't agree with how Kevin handled the situation. Personally, I think we should have some form of community de-adminship for cases like this. However, I doubt that it will ever happen. (I'm not saying that Kevin should be desysopped, but I do think that decision should be in the community's hands.) Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• My comment here more or less sums up how I feel about this issue. The behavior of certain editors on Eric's talkpage, my talkpage, and various other places is stuff that would be sanctioned as NPA violations with no one blinking an eye if this situation didn't involve Eric. I can put up with the crap although I'd be more than happy if someone feels like blocking some of the ruder attacks on Eric's talkpage, but more significant than attacks themselves is how the response to my actions points to serious cultural problems with regard to talented contributors enjoying de facto immunity from WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. As a note regarding the original situation, arbcom already has a brief note from me, and will have a less brief one in the near future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's a little late in the day for you to be crying for the protection that you deneid to others. A responsible admin thinks through the consequences of his actions before taking them.  Giano  16:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Kevin, while I agree with your concerns about those who enjoy de facto immunity from the policies cited above, I must note that there is possibly some resentment over the fact that admins are often essentially immune from serious consequences unless someone wants to jump through all the hoops of an ArbCom case. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If I made the personal attacks Eric has, I would be blocked, regardless of the fact that I'm an admin. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I doubt that it was really necessary for you to escalate the situation to that point. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom will have details in the near future (two arbs already do,) but it was. Not all blame lays on Eric and I handled it poorly, but that thread needed to die. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin, you showed poor judgement in your initial action. Rather than working so hard to justify it, why not try to learn from your mistake? --John (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I admitted from literally the first articulation I put forth of why I acted that I made mistakes in how I conducted it. I thought it was necessary at the time, and emails I've received since then whose contents would literally be oversighted if I posted them here has made me even more convinced the action was necessary even though parts of the manner were inappropriate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your language is so tortured it's hard to figure out what you mean. "I made mistakes in how I conducted it"; good. "...[T]he action was necessary"; not so good. Keep thinking, I guess. --John (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since this happened, five barnstars have appeared on Kevin's talk page and at least one of them (mine) was a direct gesture of support for his actions here. That indicates that there is a (IMHO sizable) portion of the community that are right behind Kevin on this.

IMHO, Eric's comments were remarkably choke-on-your-coffee offensive, even for Eric. The thought that anyone could be supporting them, or even thinking that this was an appropriate use of WP, is beyond me.

If Kevin's actions were in any way inappropriate (and nothing is leaping out at me), then their overall reasoning and direction was within an acceptable GF reaction to offensive behaviour in a sensitive situation. As such, even if hindsight suggests differences, there is no criticism to be made of an editor who acts in such a way, in such an obviously GF manner, in such a difficult situation – let alone whether it's Eric or any other editor beyond the rawest newbie.

As to Giano's comment today, I can only ask – how does one "smear" Eric? What possible negative spin do you put on his behaviour that's worse than the basic reality? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

How does attacking Eric help? Other than demonstrate that you think NPA is for others and not for you? --John (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally think both of them should have been blocked for a good long while. But turn that around, do other editors get free shots because someone who likely should have been blocked was not blocked? That's not how it works, last I checked. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. My ostensible personal attack is something I've already said I will not repeat, thus a block would be punitive, even if were a blockworthy comment. On the otherhand, I can pull up fifty diffs of Eric violently attacking people with no problem - which demonstrates a recurring pattern of behavior utterly justifying a long term block as a preventative measure. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok Kevin, I'll rise to that one. Please post 50 diffs of Eric "violently attacking" someone. (How does a "violent attack" work on the Internet exactly?) --John (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(EC) You've said that repeatedly - I look forward to reviewing those diffs. And you're right, blocks are preventative, not punitive. I've yet to see someone explain what would be prevented by a block here. Perhaps I overstated my point - whether you were or were not blocked doesn't justify some other editor taking pot shots at you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Given Eric's track record, if we want to avoid him making personal attacks, one would think the only type of block that would be long term preventative is an indefinite one. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Right now, nothing is to be prevented as Eric has indicated that he is leaving. Therefore, posting 50 diffs (or suggesting that you have 50 diffs) might fall into the category of 'generating more heat than light'. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 17:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric has repeatedly left and returned to resume his same behavioral pattern - there's an absolutely strong argument to be made that blocking him for a years long pattern of personal attacks and incivility is thus preventative. @Ultra: I agree with you that there's not a justification for multiple editors continuing to attack me in multiple places - which is why I view a potential block on any who continue to do so as preventative and thus potentially justifiable (whereas I used one word that people have alleged constituted a personal attack that was already closed without action, have already said it's not something I'll be doing again multiple times.) NA: I agree with you that posting a large collection of diffs at this point is not useful at this point in time. Anyone who wants to see them at the moment can look at my talk page. Or Eric's talk page. Or Eric's block log. Or Eric's contribution history. I'll save collating and posting a massive collection of diffs for an RFCU or arbcom case when Eric returns and continues his pattern of behavior. For now I'm logging off and taking a nap. One arb has a full description of why I took action and what after the fact communications make me fully believe the thread needed to die. Another arb has a tl;dr version. I'll chime in on this thread again when I wake up if it is still alive at that point.If this comment sounds grumpy... it's probably because I'm both tired and grumpy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The nap is a good idea, the first sensible thing you have said. I look forward to seeing you come back refreshed, retracting the false grave dancing claim you made and apologising, and retracting the false "50 diffs" claim and apologising for that too. --John (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There are other users behaving in the same manner. Personally, I think implying that someone is incompetent and unable to read and write is a little bit too far over the line. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would think the same about implying that someone is celebrating another's death, but that's just me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 17:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

We can argue over whether or not anything should be done regarding Kevin's actions (a thread with that purpose was already closed), but I highly doubt we will reach a consensus. Therefore, ArbCom is probably the only venue for those who want him to be sanctioned in some way. However, what about the other people who are making attacks? Will anything be done to stop that from continuing, or is this all a colossal waste of time? Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 17:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

These threads are a pointless waste of time and should be closed asap. Leaky Caldron 17:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Only post in this or the other thread that makes any sort of sense. DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

An arbitration case need not and cannot be one-sided against Kevin. If the committee should find that these "others" are also at fault, they can deal with them as well. KonveyorBelt 17:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well if it's true that the Arbcom is on possession of 'secret' material pertaining to this case, perhaps they ought to issue a statement - or they treating the plebs on the ground with same contempt as Kevin treated Eric Corbett?  Giano  18:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes move forward. Either admins should go enforce the breaches they see or recommend something with respect to them, or not, but the above demanding and posturing was closed on this board a long time ago. So, stop it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ban proposal - FanforClarl

Proposing ban of sockjobber FanforClarl (AKA Clark Bright, Brightify, HoshiNoKaabi2000, Unorginal [sic]) with mixed feelings. On the one hand he's literally begging us to ban him with his latest round of socks (Banclark1, Banclark2, Banclark3, Banclark4, Banclark5, Banclark6, Banclark7) so I am reluctant to propose feeding his greedily agape maw the negative attention it so lickishly craves, but banning him might make it easier to revert all his edits and to get his silly socks blocked quickly without going through the AGF Boy Scout theatrics of issuing multiple warnings. The user has, for years, been engaged in a long-term campaign of vandalism that includes introducing hoax content, corrupting dates and numbers, and possibly using mechanical means (maybe mobile phone/tablet apps?) to introduce gibberish into articles. Per usual, nobody knows what the sock operator's actual beef is, and while historically the user has not been overtly abusive (He created a sock Cyphoidbomb Stinks, which I thought was an almost friendly insult), and has even been playful at times[168][169], lately he's been cursing at other users and lashing out with increased hostility. So far I am unaware of any block that has been successful in scaling back his disruptions. And a minor note, the SPI report does not catalog ALL of his socks or even MOST of his socks. There are plenty more that got indeffed without being added to the SPI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

He's indef blocked for sockpuppetry. We don't need a ban. We may need some intensive rangeblocking but a community ban accomplishes little to nothing here. CSD Criteria G5 accomodates both blocked and banned users, and he's defacto banned right now. I can work at a rangeblock for him, but a ban doesn't do anything here. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No ban - range blocks though should be used per NativeForeigner. --AdmrBoltz 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well isn't that a sad little trumpet I hear? :) Thanks guys. And sorry, Clarl. I tried to make all your dreams come true. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3‎ edit warring

Would someone uninvolved please step in at this current RFA talk page? Multiple users have spent the better part of two days repeatedly reverting one piece of commentary back and forth. Since this concerns an open RFA, it's a potentially sensitive issue; perhaps a crat is willing to step up and figure things out? There are a number of editors to notify about this post; please give me a few minutes and I should have them all covered. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That crap was originally posted by an IP....likely a ban evader...that is why I have been removing it.--MONGO 18:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to remove someone else's comments, you need a damn sight better reason than "likely" ban evasion. — Scott • talk 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Like hell I do...there are only two probable explanations...the IP is a ban evader and or a chickenshit that doesn't want to use their real username.--MONGO 19:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fail to see what this has to do with me. I have reinstated material because WP:TPO requires a discussion for material to be removed where there are clear objections to it being removed. I do not accept that the entire 59k of material is as it has been characterised. If there is content that clearly breaches WP:TPG it should be identified and selectively removed. There are clear objections to the content being censored en masse and it therefore should be discussed, not edit warred over. I was incorrect to state in my edit summary that the author had self-identified. That was an error and I apologise. For the reasons stated above I have reinstated the material once, I will not be doing so again. Leaky Caldron 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Once an editor suggested using Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reference, I had a feeling the dramu would only escalate. How about I withdraw my candidacy now and we just close this mess now before someone gets blocked? No point to give the author(s) hiding before the IP even more satisfaction. I'd appreciate a courtesy blank of the anon's post once the discussion is archived; if possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've moved that post to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3‎/Statement by 153.19.58.76, since it's so long. Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I see Future Perfect at Sunrise just protected the page. Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And, sorry, while I see your motive in doing this, I have deleted that page, and removed the posting from the main page again too. The way I see it, there is simply no room for rational doubt that this is from an old participant in the EEML conflict with a heavy grudge and very deep personal involvement in the conflict. Why is that person posting from an anonymous IP? Either because they are a banned user and can't post otherwise (in which case it obviously has to be removed), or because they are an established user and don't want it connected to them – in which case it's an equally obvious breach of WP:SCRUTINY. In either case, it's obviously abusive and should not be allowed to stand. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact; where it's plain obvious that something comes from a troll sock there is no reason to bend over backwards to accommodate the troll. I've protected the page for a few hours to stop the unacceptable edit-warring too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain why it's abusive? The comment was mostly a succinct account of some of the candidate's behaviour in relation to the Eastern European Mailing List and its members up to late 2013, supported by diffs. I looked at about half the diffs and found that they did support the claims they nominally supported, so they were not a breach of WP:NPA. Of course the IP was probably an enemy from some past conflict - but we don't know if they're banned, and they may have a valid reason to not disclose their identity. I know nothing about Piotrus, so I found the information helpful in deciding whether to support his candidacy.

Also, since it is clear that you believe the IP's comment should be hidden, and were a party to the edit war, was it appropriate for you to use your admin tool to lock the talk page in your preferred version? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No idea what this is about. No recollection of interaction with the individuals involved. And no idea of the relevance or truth of the material posted. But if someone goes about writing a piece that long (whether a diatribe or otherwise) it warrants remaining on an RfA talk page. There's nothing overtly abusive about it, and if it's meaningless people will see through it, but a lot of RfA lies with someone character and history.

(And having someone post a diatribe about some long, long past drama does no hard to someone's chances during and RfA IMO. It can be a test of someone's suitability. Or it can settle minds that any concerns they have belong with ancient history.)

As a separate issue (so far as it can be separated), I don't agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise admin actions. He/she first removed the material, then locked the page, and deleted the material from a subpage. That's a scorched earth approach that goes beyond merely locking a page at The Wrong Version to prevent warring. A sufficient numbers of editors are involved in the dispute to demonstrate the issue is not cut-and-dry enough to warrant unilateral admin action of that force. --Tóraí (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I fail to see how your obvious view above on the content you deleted does not conflict with this explanation at WP:AN, "See my rationale here: [48]. – By the way, before anybody starts speculating about "involved" admin actions, I had resolved to protect that page in the state I found it (without the comment), as a perfectly uninvolved administrator, but then saw that somebody had beat me to it by a matter of seconds, reinstating the comment while I was preparing to hit the protect button. I think it is legitimate in such a situation to revert to the state I initially meant to protect. " You knew exactly what you were doing and why. I suggest you reinstate the sub-page at let others be the better, neutral judge than you can be. Leaky Caldron 20:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What "view about the content"? I have not expressed any. In fact, I personally would probably agree with many of the views expressed by that IP, but that's neither here nor there. Just because the IP may have been right about some things doesn't stop it being an abusive sock post in breach of – at least – WP:SCRUTINY, or – much more likely – WP:BAN. I see with some sadness that most of the people who rally against the removal of the sock posting are just those who are critical of Piotrus, and those who want it removed are those who are supportive of him. I, at least, am utterly free from suspicion of being Piotrus' friend or ally; in this sense I am certainly more qualified to take this decision from a neutral perspective than anybody else who has been involved here so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "view" for example, "that there is simply no room for rational doubt that this is from an old participant in the EEML conflict with a heavy grudge and very deep personal involvement in the conflict." Maybe, but even a broken clock is accurate twice a day. No reason to remove all of that stuff without discussion. Leaky Caldron 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove the comment and then protect the page? Why didn't you just protect the version that existed when you clicked "Protect"? It's clear from your comments here that you think that, because the IP is a banned user or has no good reason to hide his identity when criticising this person, their comment should be removed. You removed it, becoming a party to the edit war, then protected the page. Isn't that WP:INVOLVED? What am I missing? (I'm not looking for sanctions, admonishments or anything, just either a sensible explanation as to where I'm wrong in my analysis here, or an acknowledgement that you made a mistake.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Future, did you consider that the poster may have been someone who left Wikipedia of their own volition? They may be someone who never had an account. Or they may be someone who has lost access to their account (forgotten password, no email or disused email). The options you lay out are not the only ones.

I'm just as uninvolved and I don't see any evidence of a banned user or a sock (just someone who holds a grudge). Are we to consider all unflattering IP posts with suspicion? Should we assume they are all socks or banned users? --Tóraí (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Taken over protection I've taken over the protection. I was about to protect the page myself and I was doing research into the edit war first. When I went back to push the buttons, Fut Prof had already done so. However, had he not done so and only reverted, I would've ended up protecting it in whichever state it was in at the time and that would've been exactly as it is now. So, I've taken over the protection since there are questions about his revert. I don't consider this to incriminate him at all, I'm simply doing it so the question about whether the page should be locked or not are answers: yes, it should be locked. The appropriateness of the IP's comments have no bearing on whether or not protection was appropriate. It was.--v/r - TP 20:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Good move. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I was also trying to sort through the mess (I wasn't going to jump straight to full-protect, but whatever, stylistic differences I suppose) when FPaS protected. However, I'd say that if you feel strongly enough that there is a right version to wait for it to appear, you are almost certainly not impartial enough to protect it. If you feel strongly enough to revert back to your right version right before you protect, then you are definitely not impartial enough to protect it. Good end, bad means. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• There is no evidence the IP is evading a ban. I don't think there's any doubt that the IP is someone with an account that has been in conflict with the EEML, but that is no reason on its own to remove the listing. And MONGO, for you to complain about the piece and then to call the IP a "chickenshit" is hilariously hypocritical. The post was very relevant to the entire RfA, particularly given Piotrus' actions in this very RfA, and was fairly lacking in any personal attacks; everything in it was backed up by diffs, and they were fairly accurate as well - I know, because I checked a lot of them. Calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack, particularly not when backed up by the weight of evidence that there was. FPaS' decision to remove the post and then protect the page is, to be blunt, an abuse of their tools, which is disappointing for an admin I usually respect (I wouldn't have cared which version was protected, as long as the protecting admin didn't supervote; I requested protection in the hope that this wouldn't happen, and evidently I was wrong to expect it to be protected as it was.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Had the chickenshit used their username to post their diatribe I wouldn't have removed it.--MONGO 05:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, and given that FPaS deleted the subpage whilst doing their supervoting, can someone restore that, with full protection active please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fully agreeing with Lukeno94. Perfect summary and conclusion.--Razionale (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily have seen a strong need to delete that subpage. As such, I left a note for the deleting sysop, but obviously I respect his judgement on the delete. I can't say that editing immediately before protecting is something I'd have done. Pakaran 22:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem here, too much respect for an Admin. who has provided not one piece of evidence to justify removing a bit of controversial research and protected a page to his preferred version. How about respecting the editor's who want it restored. Just do it. Leaky Caldron 22:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Totally agree with Luke, The piece was relevant to the RFA, and shouldn't of been removed at all!, What ever happened to WP:NOTCENSORED these days?. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• To echo this, and Anthonyhcole's similar comments, please take a look down this page at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Betacommand-related_drama.3F where Future Perfect is acting very similarly on another matter (and now that thread has been closed, he has been straight back to John Nagle's user talk: to repeat the same action, despite very clear requests not to).

AIUI, admins have extra tools but have no privileged voice in discussions. Editors are equal, and equal with admins. I believe this to be an absolutely fundamental part of how WP is constituted.

When we have an issue like this, it is thus a perilous action for an admin to start using admin tools to remove or hide parts of a discussion, good or bad. Editors making decisions or commenting on RfA or SPI should be allowed to remain in full possession of the facts. It is even worse when such actions are being carried out by an admin who is deeply INVOLVED themselves. For an admin to then start threatening blocks of GF editors who object is simply unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• As one of the participants in the edit war, I was not in a position to protect the page or vaporize the subpage which was created to house the IP diatribe. However, it should be noted that (alone among all of the other edit warriors) I have not !voted in this RFA (and am likely to not do so, as I have too many conflicting views on this candidacy). Excepting FPAS and EpicGenius, all of the other people who removed the section were people who support Piotr's RFA, and every single one of the people who restored it (or have cast aspersions at FPAS) have made their dislike for Piotr clear. The IP editor (who geolocates to a university in Gdansk) has *0* other edits, and (from the polished look of the section) is obviously not a new editor. It's blindingly obvious that he's a troll, and more than likely not is a banned editor looking to extract a pound of flesh from Piotrus for his role in the EEML debacle. I gave the IP post all of the consideration it deserved (very little) and deleted it. When I was reverted, I had intended not to delete it again, and attempted to discuss it with the editor who reverted me. [170] When that was discarded out of hand ("not interested in hearing defense for censorship, sorry")[171] , I proceeded to revert it twice more (and the same editor undid my edits while screaming about "censorship" and a general how-dare-you-disagree-with-me attitude which I found offputting. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I don't like trolling from banned editors. Horologium (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

However, it should be noted that (alone among all of the other edit warriors) I have not !voted in this RFA (and am likely to not do so, as I have too many conflicting views on this candidacy). Excepting FPAS and EpicGenius, all of the other people who removed the section were people who support Piotr's RFA. Nope. I haven't voted in the RfA, or (IIRC) the last one either. Harassment is harassment regardless of whether one supports or opposes the candidate, and it should be simply removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

...every single one of the people who restored it (or have cast aspersions at FPAS) have made their dislike for Piotr clear. Nope. I don't know the guy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Marek, given how clearly the post exposes your abusive actions, you shouldn't try to paint yourself as even remotely uninvolved. And I don't really know Piotrus either, but the evidence is both overwhelming and not "harassment" - that's the response of people involved trying to cover their arses. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Luke, you seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension and a propensity to respond to figments of your imagination rather than the actual situation. At the same time you appear to be easy to influence, apparently because you're lazy and not particularly... astute. If you actually paid attention you'd note that I never "tried to paint myself as even remotely uninvolved". You are imagining things or you're deliberately misrepresenting things. Either way, doesn't speak well of you. Second, if you think that cowardly anonymous rant was anything but a bunch of bullshit upon bullshit, with irrelevant and false "diffs" sprinkled throughout to give it a semblance of legitimacy, well, what can I say, some people are easy to fool. It didn't "expose" any of my "abusive actions". Again, you are imagining things or you are deliberately misrepresenting things. It was harassment. It was bullshit. It was posted by some anonymous coward. And you, crying "notcensored!" like some twelve year old who doesn't get his way and calls his mommy a fascist, want to enable the harassment and humiliation by anonymous IPs of editors who have done more for Wikipedia than you a hundred times over. Editors, who, frankly, you are not even fit to comment upon (and no, I am not referring to myself). Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Marek, I read quite a few of the diffs, and normally I would be one of those reverting such a set of evidence - but normally it is invalid. Everything I read backed up what the IP said, and none of the diffs I read were even slightly misrepresented. Your desperation to cover your arse is fairly amusing, and fairly pointless. I do not have "a serious problem with reading comprehension and a propensity to respond to figments of your imagination rather than the actual situation" - you are blinded by your own abusive actions, and are desperate to hide them by any means necessary. How sad. Truly, who is the coward here - the person who didn't use their account because they knew of how much abuse they would get (and yes, I've seen the Encyclopedia Dramatica page), or the person desperately trying to cover up overwhelming evidence that shows they should've been banned a while ago? Hmm? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Wait. You're saying that this poor person didn't use their account "because they knew of how much abuse they would get" and then refer to Encyclopedia Dramatica? Essentially implying that if they had posted under their real name either *I* or maybe Piotrus or someone else would've... done a hit piece on them? Look you moron. It was Piotrus and me and others who were harassed on ED by these people, not the other way around. I really hope you're just sitting there lying because it's hard to believe that anyone would be that stupid. You don't have a single, not one, not a shred of evidence that *I* ever "abused" anyone on or off Wiki, outed them or otherwise harassed them. (Criticized them? Sure). So don't make accusations like that, and at least - please! - think a second or two before you write this stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk)

• Still trying to cover up, I see. I never said that it would be you that made the abuse on ED, did I? No, that's what you wanted me to have said. Nor did I say that you had abused anyone - I said you had gamed the system, and the EEML ArbCom case categorically proves that. Nor do you have any evidence that this person ever had an account - it is not implausible that they have always edited as an IP. The diffs were not "fake", so that's just you lying through your teeth (whilst accusing others of lying). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you just implied it, in your usual slimy way. As to whether this person ever had an account... please. No, they just popped out of the blue with an IP address talking about stuff that happened in 2006, with a super-nicely formatted bordered and aligned text, digging out diffs on stuff that nobody, not even me remembers, and thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies! Stop being daft. (Actually, personally I'm pretty sure it wasn't just one user behind that post but that it was a "group effort" but nm) Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether the IP's diffs were correct or not is of no relevance whatsoever. The post was abusive not because it was wrong, but because it was made from a position of illegitimate socking. No matter whether the original editor behind that IP is formally banned or not, or whether they just opted to "not use their account" for some reason you consider understandable – it doesn't matter a bit. Our rules are very clear on this: if you want to involve yourself in a matter of wiki-politics, you do it openly and under your legitimate account name. There is never an excuse for hiding your face in this way, even if you are otherwise an editor in good standing. That alone is compelling grounds for treating the IP as abusive, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Show me the proof that the IP was originally a user with an account, and hasn't always edited as an IP? That's right, there isn't one. You're just making up policies to justify your supervote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why is this turning into a huge drama-fest? Do people think that there is going to be another 65 support votes, which with no more opposes takes the RFA to ~70% support, without that information on the talk page? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Why the love of drama? Why the need to restore this attack on Piotrus by some cowardly anon IP ? Unless... the purpose really *is* just to humiliate him. Plenty of folks around Wikipedia, and especially RfA, who enjoy that kind of thing way too much. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose to TParis's unannounced and authoritarian offer of brushing-under-the-carpet. It aims at suppressing over 200 evidence diffs without any consideration. While the only claim remains that it could be from a banned user, which is possible but a speculation, this is long irrelevant because even if it were, then other users have already taken over the responsibility for the material [172] ("Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."). Yes, taking over material exists, but "taking over protection"s is bizarre and some way to undermine the objection to super-voting. Since the report contains pieces still actionable, anyone trying to suppress it must be held to blame for it. Piotrus is in my opinion an impressive and productive Wikipedian, but his RFA was already lost before the report. The only result from brushing it under the carpet is that Pioturs could and would continue the totally unacceptable tag-teaming, EEML business, misrepresentations, misleading of voters, disregard for checking copyright and so forth. Any reference to the evidence would be shredded as something courtesy blanked.--Razionale (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's necessary for FPaS (whom I don't know from Adam), when he's back online, to explain how he didn't breach WP:INVOLVED, or acknowledge his breach. My concern obviously is that if he breached WP:INVOLVED but thinks the rule doesn't apply to him or doesn't see that he breached the rule, or doesn't think he has to address this reasonable request, then we have a character or competency problem with this editor.

To be very clear: I'm not asking FPaS to explain why his preferred version was superior - that's something about which reasonable people may disagree - but to explain how he did not breach WP:INVOLVED, or acknowledge it was a breach. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI for anyone who might not know, the RfA has now been closed (although that doesn't necessarily make the discussion moot). Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Should MONGO be blocked for personal attacks? They've made their third "chickenshit" remark, despite knowing full well it is inappropriate. I agree with Anthony that FPaS needs to explain themselves. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, "chickenshit" is precisely the word that is appropriate here. There's a couple of words that come to mind in relation to your little agitation games here but I'll refrain. FPaS is one of the few people here who has shown some decency, and honestly, you and a few others... are behaving like the stereotype of an immature adolescent internet bully who revels in humiliating others for the fun of it and gets their kicks by exercising petty power in petty fashion. Oh, wait a minute, you don't even have any power, you're not even an admin, just another drama board groupie wasting people's time. Find better places to hang out than ANI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• So you trying to censor and bully people who point out how much you've gamed the system over the years is somehow appropriate? Note that two editors have 100% supported my assessment of the edit war situation, and two editors whom I've barely interacted with anywhere, so I'm clearly not "an immature adolescent internet bully" if I'm talking sense, am I? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeeeeaaahhhh, I'm trying to "bully" an anonymous IP coward with obvious mental problems, who posted a long super creepy, obsessive attack hit piece about another editor. Poor anonymous IP editor. Bullied by the evil Volunteer Marek. Good thing Wikipedia has valiant defenders of the truth, always ready to scream "notcencorsed!" who are here to speak up for the rights of anonymous IP editors to harass and humiliate others. What would this place be like without you? Oh my god! I just realized what it would be like. It would be a place where anonymous IP editors might not be so inclined to harass and humiliate people who have the courage to edit under their own names. The horror!

Yes, buddy, that's on you too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow Marek, that's beneath you. 8-( Now Luke and I have had enough run ins before that no-one is likely to characterise me as simply leaping to the defence of some wiki-friend here, but your comments on him are uncalled for, unhelpful and awfully close to NPA. Especially the implication of "No non-admins at ANI". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose close

This is descending into a shitfest. The RfA is closed. The point is moot. And I'm sure the IP is pleased. There are community issues, maybe, but the village pump is the best place to discuss them IMO. They are not going to be resolved here.

Any objections to closing this thread to prevent further misery and rancor? --Tóraí (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I am formulating a follow-up question for FP. Please leave it a while. Leaky Caldron 11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. --Tóraí (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Long term harassment by an IP

Ip 69.253.15.167 Seems to have a personal vendeta agenst me vandlising my user page more then 5 time is the past 6 monthes (1 2 3 4 5) and I also suspect user:Epicclown is a sock of this ip. He is also very clearly A long term vandal two. Im tired of his constant vendetta against me. To me it looks like A straightforward vandal who needs a year long block. also my Userpage is vandlised so much it looks like an infinite semi-protection wouldn't go amiss ither. Thankyou.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address for 6 months (it appears to be static). If the problem returns with a new IP, please let me know and I will semi-protect your user page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Betacommand-related drama?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So Bort Nort (talk · contribs) makes [173] this edit to my talk page, alleging that Werieth (talk · contribs) is a sock of Betacommand (talk · contribs). Today, Werieth (talk · contribs) seems to be busily gnoming, doing bot-like work tagging non-free orphaned images, and may even be a bot. But nothing bad seems to be resulting. (Betacommand was notorious for running error-prone 'bots and mis-tagging. Wereth doesn't seem to have that problem.)

Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (talk · contribs) deletes this from my talk page, claiming that "Bort Nort" is a "serial ban-evading sock.[174]. I revert that deletion on my own talk page, and put a routine "test1" notice on the talk page of Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise again deletes the message from Bort Nort, and is then annoyed with me for undoing his deletion. I'd rather hear what people have to say on my talk page, even if I don't agree with it, so I don't want deletions there.

I seem to have become involved in some ongoing feud between other parties. But I don't know the context. I was involved in the Betacommand mess years ago, but after that source of drama was blocked, I hadn't given it much attention. Is there something big going on here that I should be aware of? --John Nagle (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Its just a harassment troll, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Formal Appointee Number 6 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Formal Appointee Number 6/Archive. Werieth (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Posting a "test1" notice on the talk page of an experienced user is a bit insulting. Simply asking him to not remove the text might have been a better approach. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 21:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The situation as I understand it, Nagle, is that someone is socking to make socking accusations against Werieth, and has been for months. Because they're socking to do it, the accusations are being reverted as the product of socking, without the accusations themselves being investigated to either prove or disprove them. And therefore the person socking gets offended at being ignored, creates another sock, posts them again, is reverted again on the basis of being a sock... and soon enough we're doing laps around ANI. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that the accusations were recently investigated.—Aquegg (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Somebody needs to get a life. I'm going out to ride my horse. John Nagle (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The SPI was closed for lack of evidence, meaning a lack of someone willing to do the sizable legwork to produce the relevant diffs. However when those diffs are provided, the account providing them has been terminated with extreme prejudice. Whatever has been happening here, it has not been acting in a way as if it was important to acquire these diffs, for the good of the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been going on since November, at least. Special:Contributions/Bort_Nort is the latest version (9 edits there at present, but they'll probably be revdeled at any moment).

My comments, similar to John's, are at User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Edit_to_talk_page. In particular, I am concerned at the overlap between Future Perfect, a defender of the original Betacommand, the current issues with Werieth and now appointing themselves as defender of WP against anyone who raises the issue again – up to threatening blocks to anyone outside it who begins to take an interest. Werieth is allowed to run up 6RR and even 18RR in disputes without sanction, but I get repeated threats of blocking if I challenge him.

Future Perfect is now turning around an account in 3 minutes, completely by themselves, and acting as judge, jury and executioner on an account merely for posting the same thesis that Werieth is Betacommand. We used to have policies and a process before we indef blocked and access locked an account. Even the worst content vandals are treated better than this.

Just a few still-live links of relevance:

• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#FYI
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Can_we_get_a_few_things_straight.3F
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Final_warning
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#ani 3rr
  • [175] Werieth +3RR reverting at ANI, on the grounds that he's allowed to. (one of a series)
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Note

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Longterm disruptions from IP

• 90.224.246.99 (talk · contribs)
• 195.67.67.130 (talk · contribs)
• 95.192.43.205 (talk · contribs)
• Peter-No-Tail (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peter-No-Tail in Americat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charlie Strap, Froggy Ball and Their Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charlie Strap and Froggy Ball (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charlie Strap and Froggy Ball Flying High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thomas Funck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the above articles and more: same IP range that was active last year, edit warring at a series of articles about Swedish films. Account is again adding unsourced content and removing appropriate templates. Never engages in discussion, never uses edit summaries, never adds sources. In the past one or more of these accounts was blocked, and several articles were protected. Will request renewed protection if that's advised. JNW (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Harrassment and inappropriate PRODding by an Editor

An article created by Rpo.castro has been sent to AfD here, where I agreed with the nomination. There has been a bit of discussion between the Rpo.castro and myself about whether the sources he provided are routine, but nothing that I would consider uncivil or out of hand. However, I checked my watchlist to find that all of a sudden he had PRODed over 50 articles I had created in about 20 minutes, as can be seen here - though I note, not one edit summary to explain what had happened. This seems to me to be a complete over-reaction, and a blatant and repeated contravention of the first part of WP:POINT. Furthermore, though I am not discussing the specific merits of the nominations which I do not see as relevant at the moment, the quantity of nominations in such a short period of time is not only extremely POINTY-y, but tantamount to harrassment, particularly because:

• None of the PRODs were nominated properly, so I only saw them on my watchlist,
• I did not receive any comment about his concerns prior to PRODDING on my talk page, something I would expect to see if he had widespread concerns.
• None of the PRODs were added to the WP:FOOTY list, which is common practice.

If this is not harrassment, then at best it is the disruptive actions of someone who does not know how to nominate articles properly, nor how to engage in constructive discussion when they have major issues. I would propose a ban for a period of time on Rpo.castro nominating articles for deletion.

It may be complete coincidence, but at almost the same time, I noticed 144.64.1.99 reverted a number of random edits I had made across both football and non-football articles, with no clear rhyme or reason, nor any indication as to why they had done this, as can be seen here. Not sure whether this is the same editor, but seems weird that both things should happen in the same day. Fenix down (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I did a Geolocate on the IP 144.64.1.99 and it seems to be Portuguese. I believe it's the same IP used by Rpo.castro (talk · contribs) who is creating/updating the Atlantic Cup articles, which is held in Algarve, Portugal. Too much of a coincidence. JMHamo (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• I don't doubt that the IP is that editor--note the times. All the IP edits were made in a gap in Rpo.castro's edits, and at some point maybe they realized that PRODding is much easier when you're logged in and can use a gadget. Now, all this took place a little while ago and blocking now would be punitive. However, I agree that this editor should a. not do anything in the realm of deletion for a while (perhaps a ban can be proposed, don't know if that's necessary) and b. stay away from Fenix down's edits. If they do any of this again they should be blocked on the spot to keep it in check. (Next time, Fenix, find someone with mass rollback, like me--it's easy and good for my edit count.)

  Rpo.castro, we're still waiting on an explanation. Next disruptive edit, you are likely to be blocked, and maybe for a long time, for harassment. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Drmies:, thanks for the offer of help if this happens again, I'll be sure to take you up on it. Not sure I understand your comment about this all taking place a little while ago, it took place yeasterday evening (11/02/14), both RPO.castro's and the IP edits, though I am not here looking for a total block, just for him to understand that that behaviour is not acceptable and to stay away from PRODdin / AfDing util they can prove they know how to do it properly and appropriately. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm of a different opinion than Drmies. I think we don't need editors on Wikipedia who will mass PROD 50+ pages just for revenge. It would be protective of Wikipedia to remove this editor which is exactly what the block button is for.--v/r - TP 02:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • TParis, for all the abusive admin commentary I hear about me, I may well be too soft. I'm not likely to block someone for one angry outburst, as antisocial and disruptive as this one was, but you are, as always, free to disagree with me, and I couldn't fault you for it. Mind you, I have not looked at the user's other edits (all this FOOTY stuff bores me), so I can't really tell if they're a net positive in the first place. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Triple jump

Please protect Triple jump. There is a streak of IP and new editor vandalism happening there. Trackinfo (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected, thanks. Fram (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)